Monthly Archives: March 2020

Why do we have such a hard time sitting still?

I have family members, unable to stay inside another minute, who are going on unnecessary trips. Theyre visiting public places such as the mall, post office, grocery store and even an accountants office when they dont really need to. Im guilty of the same unnecessary behavior.

What is wrong with us? Simple. Its not that were necessarily bored; its that were human and we want to be free.

Freedom is a complicated topic, however. Theologians, philosophers and politicians have been debating it for millennia.

The average person would probably define freedom as the ability to do what you want, when you want, how you want and why you want. Dont tread on me, in a phrase.

Actress Evangeline Lilly, who played Kate in the TV show Lost, was castigated last week for sending her daughter to gymnastics camp despite warnings to social distance and shelter in place. She said the government response to COVID-19 is a power grab and seeks to destroy individual liberty.

Some people value their lives over freedom, some people value freedom over their lives. We all make our choices, she wrote.

While I would normally admire Lillys response, is this real freedom? No.

In Christian theology, God is the author of freedom. God created us with free will. We can choose to follow his commands or not. God used his own free will to create us in his image with the freedom to choose right from wrong. Im reminded of this basic tenet of Christianity as I watch various countries react to the virus.

Governments around the world are responding in two significantly different ways. Authoritarian states such as China have forced quarantine on whole cities and dragged people out of their homes and into local hospitals. They treat their populace like enslaved automatons. Theres no such thing as free will in Communist China.

Many democracies, such as America, on the other hand, have so far urged citizens to willingly comply with social distancing and self-quarantines. They are hoping to gain the publics willing compliance in an effort to limit the virus spread so hospitals arent overwhelmed.

In the Chinese model, the government resembles a deity that doesnt trust its creation with free will. It expects complete submission and gives the populace no chance to willingly obey.

American democracy, however, trusts its citizens with the freedom to choose to follow rules and suggestions. Right now, most of us (except those in breakout states such as California and New York, as of this writing) are free to follow, or not follow, the directives put forth by the government pertaining to self-quarantine. The government is relying on individuals to use their free will to follow the rules.

There are people who are still getting with the program and they (including myself) should realize that sometimes freedom isnt just doing what you want. Its doing the right and wise thing without being forced by an outside entity.

Conservatives have a hard time following government directives because were cognizant of past abuses and wary of future ones, as Lilly rightly conveys. But sometimes the government acts wisely and we should recognize it.

Were fortunate to live in a country with a Constitution that says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. Lets embrace our freedom to do the right thing by staying home as much as possible in hopes of flattening the curve so hospitals arent overrun.

Previous

View post:

Here's Something: Put your freedom to good use stay home - Press Herald

By Dr. Ron PaulFormer CongressmanThe Ron Paul Institutehttp://ronpaulinstitute.org/

Last Monday, a bipartisan group of senators and a coalition including libertarian and progressive activists thwarted a scheme to ram through the Senate legislation renewing three provisions of the USA FREEDOM Act (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act).

The bill had already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and most expected it to sail through the Senate. But instead, Senate leadership had to settle for a 77-day extension.

Senate leadership was also forced to allow consideration of several amendments at a later date. Included is Sen. Rand Pauls amendment that would forbid the FISA court from issuing warrants targeting American citizens.

Deep state supporters claim the expiring business records provision (which authorizes the collection of our communications and was at the center of Edward Snowdens 2013 revelations), lone wolf provision (which allows government to subject an individual with no known ties to terrorists to warrantless surveillance), and roving wiretaps provision (which allows government to monitor communications on any device that may be used by a targeted individual) are necessary to keep Americans safe.

But since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act almost 20 years ago, mass surveillance, warrantless wiretapping, and bulk data collection have not stopped a single terrorist attack.

The legislation does have reforms aimed at protecting civil liberties, but these new protections contain loopholes that render the protections meaningless. For example, the bill requires those targeted for surveillance to be notified that the government spied on them. However, this requirement can be waived if the government simply claims not proves but just clams that notifying the target would harm national security.

The notice provision also only applies to the target of an investigations. So, if you were caught up in a federal investigation because a coworker is being targeted and you shared an office computer, or if a store clerk reported to the government you and others bought pressure cookers, the government could collect your phone records, texts, and social media posts without giving you the chance to challenge the governments actions.

The bill also makes some reforms to the special FISA court, which serves as a rubber stamp for the intelligence community. These reforms are mainly aimed at protecting political campaigns and candidates. They would not stop the FISA court from rubber-stamping surveillance on organizations that oppose the welfare-warfare-surveillance-fiat money status quo.

Anything limiting warrantless wiretapping and mass surveillance should be supported. However, nothing short of repeal of the USA FREEDOM Act will restore respect for our right to live our lives free of the fear that Big Brother is watching.

The path to liberty, peace, and prosperity starts with eliminating all unconstitutional laws and returning to a system of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, sound money and a foreign policy that seeks peaceful commerce and friendship with all instead of seeking new monsters to destroy.

Follow this link:

Like freedom? Then you won't like the FREEDOM Act - The Highland County Press

When Republicans met this past week in Congress to talk about showering the nation with a record $1 trillion-plus economic stimulus plan, their concern wasnt so much whether that was fiscally wise. They were worried how to brand it.

Please dont call it a bailout, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin asked GOP senators, referring specifically to a $60 billion package requested by Boeing, according to The Washington Post. Industries from cruise companies to airlines to casinos were clamoring for their own relief packages.

OK, then how about freedom payments? a senator suggested.

This was presumably a joke (though with this gang you never know). But I hope it sticks, because the name freedom payments perfectly captures the fraud at the heart of the decadeslong anti-government movement.

Freedom payments: Start by channeling a cherished American principle. But then warp it in service of doling out subsidies to wealthy corporations and wrecking the nations balance sheet.

Last month, before the coronavirus started to shut down the economy, the federal government logged the biggest one-month deficit in its history, $235 billion. Im old enough to remember when that would have riled conservatives to take to the streets in tricorner hats for a tea party protest.

The worst thing in the whole world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president, then-acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admitted last month. Then Donald Trump became president, and were a lot less interested as a party.

Well were all hypocrites about something, so at least he admitted it. But the real worst thing in the world is that were not at all prepared to respond now that an actual crisis is here. Were in the unprecedented position of running near-record deficits not as we emerge from a crisis, but as we head into one.

It is beyond distressing that we may be entering a period of national emergency with record-high levels of borrowing, said Maya MacGuineas, of the never-listened-to Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who has been warning of this exact scenario for years now.

The moment of truth for that was December 2017, when Trump and the GOP passed the signature accomplishment of his presidency: The $1.9 trillion tax-cut package. Theres nothing wrong with tax cuts, of course, but there were two things radically different about these. One, the economy was already humming and businesses were booking record profits, so no stimulus was needed. Two, the costs were loaded straight onto the national debt.

The tax cuts are a cash-advance on the nations credit card, I wrote at the time.

Predictably, the deficit ballooned, despite the booming economy. This year the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion before the pandemic hit

This ones different, I wrote in February 2018. We have never blown up trillion-dollar deficits before during such fat times.

That decision to slash taxes and predictably cause an eruption of red ink during an economic boom is one of the two most reckless federal government actions of my lifetime. The other was going to war over weapons of mass destruction which turned out not to exist (a war that trend alert we also didnt pay for).

The beginning of a pandemic is no time for the government to get frugal. People and businesses need help. But with deficits already so high, and interest rates near zero, there just arent a lot of economic tools left to deal with the coronavirus fallout.

This ought to make every American angry, from the tea partyers to the socialists. The stated premise of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was to goose the economy, which it didnt do (annual growth was exactly the same in the two years prior to passage as in the two years after 2.4%). So it didnt make America stronger.

What it did was weaken the federal government, by looting the treasury to feather the nests mostly of corporations and the already rich. This withering of the government has always been part of the point. It goes back to the conservative mantra of government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.

But where are the adherents of this now now that were in trouble? Theyre clamoring for their own freedom payments.

Crises like the coronavirus ought to make plain why we need government in the first place. Will it though? This virus has instantly laid bare how weak and broken the system is. The question now is whether thats shock enough that well try to heal the underlying malady, too.

Read the original:

Freedom payments? The coronavirus exposes the fraud of the anti-government movement. - Seattle Times

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Spreading fake news can officially put you in prison.

Last Thursday, in a move that made international headlines, government promulgated its first criminal prohibition on fake news. In short, any person who publishes any statement with the intention to deceive any other person about Covid-19, a persons infectious status or government measures to address Covid-19 commits an offence.

In doing so, we sail into uncharted territory.

Why is that? Well, its true that while some specific forms of lying are criminal offences (i.e. perjury and fraud), the right to freedom of expression generally gives South Africans the freedom to knowingly tell lies in public.

This is mostly not a problem, because the lies people tell usually dont cause any harm. If someone wants to preach that Beyonce and Jay-Z are part of the Illuminati, or that aliens built the pyramids or that crystals can heal erectile dysfunction, well its crazy, but as far as the law is concerned, go ahead.

Obviously, false information can be harmful. If you look at the historic legacy of AIDS denialism, the risk created by the belief that vaccines cause autism or the obstructive effect of climate change skepticism on environmental action, its easy to see how damaging false information can be.

But from a legal perspective, the law does not censure or censor liars. In the marketplace of ideas, the charlatan and the expert are equally entitled to stand on their soapbox to try to win the crowd.

Why is this the position in our law? Lets look at the two sides to the argument.

On the one hand, fake news is harmful to democratic life because it negatively impacts ones ability to receive accurate information. This negative impact can be direct, where fake news directly contradicts true information which is then disbelieved. Or it can be indirect; where the sheer amount of fake news creates so much noise that it drowns out true information.

Fake news effectively functions like propaganda which, in the political context, prevents South Africans exercising informed political choices to hold those in power to account. In a medical context, it could also lead to panic or people adopting harmful treatments instead of treatments backed by evidence and research.

Accordingly, so the argument goes, freedom of expression is not unlimited, and if unnecessary panic or false beliefs are going to cost human lives, then the law should step in to prevent that.

On the other hand, banning fake news creates enormous potential for authoritarian abuse. Just like any variation on the basic insight that power corrupts, a law that allows those in power to silence critics or those with unpopular opinions, is ripe for abuse through selective enforcement, targeted bullying (exacerbated by unequal access to resources) and intimidation.

Like so many constitutional questions, the problem generally doesnt come up when a government does its job well, but rather, when such a law is in the hands of a government acting in its own self-interest.

Then such a law is nothing but an instrument of oppression.

One need only look at how politicians, corporates, celebrities or the rich already use defamation laws in an attempt to silence criticism or obstruct good journalism to realize the enormity of the potential risk that could also be posed to the publication of true information and the health of the information marketplace.

As such, the general consensus has been that when one balances the trade-offs, the harm created by laws penalizing fake news far outweighs the harms created by fake news itself in the long run, and thats why laws criminalising fake news should be avoided.

At least, thats been the consensus until now. Such a significant potential threat is posed by the risk of false information regarding Covid-19 though (and the feared effect this would have on public health) that the authorities have decided to wade into those murky waters which have mostly been avoided by democracies.

Given the severe risk that Covid-19 poses to public health, our economic well-being and civil stability, the usual opposition from civil society and media law experts has been notably more muted. Many seem to have instinctively felt that this is an incursion into the right to freedom of expression worth allowing and that sufficient safeguards are in place. Particularly, the limited shelf-life of the prohibition coupled with the requirement that one must have the intention to deceive arguably marks it as a proportional limitation of the right given the objective it seeks to achieve. I recommend Dario Milo and John Thiels excellent piece explaining the regulation, its likely constitutionality and possible downsides. I agree with their assessment.

But heres the rub. Although a sort of Fake News Freedom of Expression absolutism seemed to be the orthodox position, this (initial) acceptance of Corona-Censorship shows however that there is at least one exception to this rule that we are willing to tolerate. And if that is indeed the case, then it naturally raises the question: what other exceptions are we willing to tolerate?

In the case of Corona-Censorship, the constitutional rationale which appears to underlie this new regulation seems to be that although there is a general high degree of harm posed to democracy by laws penalising fake news, the immediate risk posed to human life by Covid-19 related fake news outstrips the potential democratic harm of such a coercive power and therefore it is justifiable.

Perhaps Public Health is the one obvious category of exceptions worth allowing, because human life is directly endangered. But if harm to human life is the underlying rationale, then what do we do about other large threats to human wellbeing that are almost certain (albeit slower moving). Climate Change? Air pollution? Antibiotic resistance? HIV/Aids denialism? As Pandoras Box creaks open, even the issue of corruption starts to circle the drain, given the undeniable harmful effect systemic corruption has on human life and well-being.

Admittedly, slippery-slope reasoning is the last refuge of scoundrels, but perhaps we cant bank on the assumption that this move to criminalize Covid-19 fake news is merely the exception that proves the rule.

As such, as we sail into this relatively uncharted territory, well need to keep our wits about us. It is crucial that researchers, journalists, lawyers and civil society gather data, pool information and keep tabs on how this new law is enforced.

As much as we can rely on jurisprudential theory to frame how we approach this issue, it is also important to treat this period as a legal laboratory to observe how it plays out in reality.

And once the pandemic recedes and we try to return to business as usual (whatever the hell that is going to look like), were going to need to have a difficult conversation about what to do with the death of the old orthodoxy and the beginning of a world where, at least in some cases, fake news may be thought of as a crime. DM

Michael Laws is an advocate at the Johannesburg Bar. His speciality interests include media and information law.

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

Read more here:

The First Gag is the Deepest: Freedom of Expression after Corona Censorship - Daily Maverick

About 1,000 U.S. flags were posted Sunday at Richville Park by Operation: Flags of Freedom organizers and local volunteers coming out to lend a hand.

PERRY TWP. John Dunn was among the dozens of motorists passing by Richville Park around midday Sunday. Like many, he was so surprised at the sight, he halted his vehicle, made a U-turn and returned for a longer look.

Dunn was en route to his Navarre home when he caught a glimpse of numerous U.S. flags blanketing the park grounds, which is located at the northwest corner of Stump Avenue and Navarre Road SW.

Strolling around the area for an up-close look at the field of flags might have been the highlight of Dunns day.

"This is a wonderful gesture. Its brave of them to do this," he said.

Approximately 1,000 U.S. flags were posted Sunday morning at Richville Park by Operation: Flags of Freedom organizers and local folks who chipped in. Overall, about 80 people volunteered for nearly two hours.

Steve Toohey, the founder and chief executive of the nonprofit Flags of Freedom, said the rally was mainly to show a sign of camaraderie and patriotism during a tough time. The coronavirus outbreak this month has been a deterrent to many public events, with restaurants, businesses closed and folks out of work, he added.

According to Toohey, part of the mission was to respect Gov. Mike DeWines recommendation for state residents to fly an American flag at their home or property. Another was to bring attention to U.S. military troops and other first responders.

"We see this as a rally-the-troops effort," said Toohey, adding that mobile lighting will shine on the flags at night. "We started today thanking them, our police, firefighters and (military) veterans."

Folks in uniform werent the only ones in mind Sunday, Toohey explained. As onlookers filed into the park to view the flags, many left a few dollars behind to show their appreciation.

As of mid-afternoon, a few hundred dollars had been dropped into the Flags of Freedom glass jar. Donations are to benefit local restaurant waiters and employees whove lost work due to the governors directive prohibiting inside dining at establishments.

"Were going to find a way to help out those not working right now," Toohey said. "Somehow, well figure it out."

O-H-I-O!

A few hundred of the red, white and blue flags were formed to spell "O-H-I-O" in an open section of Richville Park that houses a few baseball fields.

"I see this empty field every day," Toohey said. "It was great to get outside, enjoy nice weather and do all this to clear your mind."

One volunteer assisting with placing flags Sunday was Brandon Cooper, a former U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal who resides in Marshallville.

"I think its is good for the service members and first responders," said Cooper, noting he has multiple family members and friends who serve in the military. "Were all in this together."

Two-week stay

The flags are expected to remain at Richville Park for at least two weeks, said Toohey, adding that another 1,000 banners are likely to be displayed later this week along Interstate 77 in proximity to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton.

Flags of Freedom has raised flags around the Hall of Fame before, and the groups signature displays often come to Perry High School for Fourth of July, Memorial Day and Veterans Day events.

Toohey said Toledo and Lancaster are other cities where the flags have flown.

"We like to take Flags of Freedom about everywhere," he said. "We really want to extend across the country into other cities and states to promote patriotism and unity."

Reach Steven at 330-775-1134 or at steven.grazier@indeonline.com.

On Twitter: @sgrazierINDE

Excerpt from:

Freedom on display with 1,000 U.S. flags flying in Perry - Canton Repository

To reassure concerned Americans about the coronavirus, President Trump held a press conference with the heads of some of the largest companies in the country. One of the messages he was clearly hoping to convey was that, however feckless the federal response had been to that point, he is now harnessing the skills and innovative approaches of business leaders. Any enthusiasm that might have been generated for relying on the forces of capitalism to protect us, however, quickly disappeared as the national struggle to address the spreading pandemic has now been more urgent.

Since the 1980s, we have lost sight of the notion that our country must have a mix of government and markets to keep us safe and prosperous. Americans rightly value individualism, but that is not enough to protect our liberty. The history of the United States is one that has relied on both government and markets to ensure that liberty. It is certainly easy to see how markets promote liberty, since individuals are free to make whatever choices they deem appropriate. But the government is also necessary to promote liberty. This is because the market system, when left to its own devices, creates risks for individuals that push far beyond their control. When this happens, the government can and must act to keep us safer.

Americans should of course welcome help from the largest companies in the country. It is not the market system and individualism, however, that will save the day. To get through this, we need a collective and organized response, led by competent and prepared government leaders with the foresight to plan before the problem turns from a crisis to a catastrophe.

The focus right now is on the lack of coronavirus testing kits, emergency planning, and so on, but the lack of federal government preparation runs much deeper. With our emphasis on individualism rather than smart and effective governance, we have created a level of economic inequality that will harm all of us by leading to a wider outbreak and even more financial dislocation. The inequities hardwired into our economy, such as jobs that do not pay a living wage and the lack of health insurance for millions of workers, leave many of our fellow men and women at far greater risks.

Even if testing kits are available, people without health insurance would avoid them because of the cost of supportive care following a diagnosis. People will go to work even if they think they might be sick because they need to earn the money to feed and shelter themselves and their families. Any time that we are not able to heed the public guidance to stay at home and avoid personal interaction, we increase the danger that our hospitals will become overwhelmed, unable to care for the elderly and vulnerable who are seriously ill, or anyone else suffering from a medical emergency.

The United States has greatly benefited from a robust market system, but sensible public policy can ensure that its prosperity reaches everyone and that we work together to protect each other from harm. In the short term, we should make emergency aid available for those millions of Americans who will be staying home without pay. We cannot let people starve, suffer from malnutrition, or be thrown out of their homes when they lose work.

The government must do all this and much more to reduce the severity of the incoming recession. In the long term, our elected leaders should pass and effectively implement health care and economic measures to ensure that there is no next time of facing a pandemic unprepared. A new mix of government and markets is necessary both today and into the future.

Sidney Shapiro is the Fletcher Chair in Administrative Law at Wake Forest University and is a board member with the Center for Progressive Reform.

Read more:

What is the cost of freedom and liberty in the era of coronavirus? | TheHill - The Hill

Lata Nott is chief content officer of the Freedom Forum.

In times of crisis, safety and freedom may seem like theyre at odds with each other. A society that respects individual liberty cant implement the same kinds of drastic laws and policies that a more authoritarian one can.

This puts more of an onus on citizens of a democracy to make responsible choices. As we face a virus that we can easily pass on without realizing it, that may not cause any symptoms in those who are young and healthy but is potentially deadly to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions, we need to keep in mind that our independent media and civil society can be assets in this fight, as long as we balance our personal freedoms with care and compassion for each other.

As I write this column,7,038 people have tested positive forCOVID-19 in the United States. The highly contagious nature of the virus has led Ohio to postpone its presidential primary, Washington and Maryland to shut down all restaurants and bars (except for delivery and takeout) and California to call for all people 65 and older to shelter inside their homes. More than 30 states have closed their schools. On Sunday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that no gatherings of 50 people or more be held in the U.S. for the next eight weeks. On Monday, it amended thatwarning to apply to gatherings of more than 10 people. Imcertain that by the time you read this,there will be more cases of COVID-19, as well as more shutdowns, both voluntary and mandated by state and local officials.

All of this was unimaginable last week. Just last month, the coronavirus seemed like a rather distant problem,even though the firstconfirmed case in the U.S. occurred in late January. We had several weeks to observe Chinas handling ofCOVID-19and at first,a lotof our conversations had a tone of reluctant admiration for howswiftly an authoritarian government couldact in the face of an outbreak. In a matter of days, the Chinese government had quarantined entire cities, suspended travel, closed schools and businesses and built two new specialized hospitals. What democracy could matchthat?

It didnt take long forthe truth to come to light. Not that the Chinese government had been censoring information and violating civil liberties that was sort of a given but that censoring information and violating civil liberties actually made the outbreak worse. Chinas suppression of news about the outbreak prevented health care practitioners and individuals from being able to take appropriate precautions and hindered officials from being able to coordinate a response. As this personal essay from an anonymous resident of Wuhan put it, Before this coronavirus, I always thought it was OK to sacrifice some level of democracy and freedom for better living conditions. But now I have changed my attitude. Without democracy and freedom, the truth of the outbreak in Wuhan would never be known.

Of course, now that its our turn to deal with the virus, its hard to argue that were doing much better. For weeks, the Trump administration downplayed the severity of the situation, contradicting public health experts and news media reports and delaying containment and mitigation efforts. According to The Washington Post, early problems with manufacturing coronavirus tests, along with an initial decision to test only a narrow set of people and delays in expanding testing to other labs, gave the virus a head start to spread undetected and helped perpetuate a false sense of security that leaves the United States dangerously behind. Officials in China are reportedly watching our mishandling of the outbreak with a mix of shock and pleasure. They find it hard to believe that the worlds top superpower might be bungling its response to the virus, even after having had weeks to prepare for its possible arrival.

As the national security law blog Lawfare has pointed out, many observersare using the coronavirus as a proxy war for democracies versus authoritarian systems. This is,of course, an oversimplification, but it does highlight an important truth civil liberties do have an impact on how governments deal with crises. Our freedoms of press and speech ensure the free flow of information, but they also allow misinformation to spread. And while South Korea, a fellow democracy but one with less regard for civil liberties,was able to curtail its COVID-19 outbreak by forcibly shutting downa series of churches where the virus initially spread, its hard to imagine an American government official doing the same. Such an action, might register to many Americans as an egregious violation of basic First Amendment instincts regarding the freedom of religion, right to assemble and separation of church and state.

Our state, city and federal officials do have the power to place people in isolation or quarantine, but that power is tempered by the Constitution (the government cannot confine people arbitrarily and without adequate explanation) and by the norms of our society (the impact on liberty means that these are considered measures of last resort). Officials in the U.S. are more likely to recommend that people voluntarily practice social distancing. And even when they do make some aspects of this behavior compulsory, these policies arent nearly as draconian as they would be in an authoritarian system. WhenOhio Gov. Mike DeWine ordered bars, restaurants and recreation centers closed,he added, we hope that Ohioans will follow this advice. Just as with every other law or rule, you cant enforce it every time. Compare this to language a Chinese party committee used to discourage citizens from hiding infections: Whoever deliberately delays or conceals reporting for the sake of their own interests will be forever nailed to historys pillar of shame.

Our democratic approach means that we run the risk of our citizens not taking the warnings seriously. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie observed on Monday that, There are still too many Americans going out to restaurants, bars and other public areas as if this is business as usual. In a way, this is the cost of our freedoms. Weve been advised, whether we are healthy or ill, to practice social distancing, by minimizing contact with other people, limiting nonessential travel, working from home and avoiding gatherings. But for most of us, this isnt a mandate. Instead, its a choice we make every time we cancel plans, stay in our homes and forego human contact for another day. These decisions might not make much of a difference to your personal health and safety, but can have an outsized impact on the health and safety of others. As the director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, has said, I think we as a nation have to get into a place of not just thinking about ourselves, but thinking about everybody else around us, and particularly the most vulnerable people those who are older and those people with chronic diseases. Young people may have a relatively low risk of serious illness, kids seem to have a very low risk, but if you want to avoid what could be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, then it is incumbent on all of us to severely limit our social interactions. We need to ask the question about every interaction we have and whether it is necessary or not.

It can be quite daunting to realize that flattening the curve slowing the rate of new infections in order to buy researchers more time to develop vaccines and give hospitals some respite is a responsibility that falls on all of us as individuals. But the thing about democracies is that theyre fundamentally optimistic about human nature. We give people civil liberties, knowing full well that some will abuse those rights, because we expect that, on the whole, most will use them wisely. We protect heinous speech, false information andpointless assembly from government crackdowns because we dont want to risk infringing on valuable speech, information and assembly and with that there isaninherentassumption that its worth it, that the good outweighs the bad.

There is no requirement that you exercise your freedoms responsibly, but the fact that you have them reflects the underlying belief that you will.

Lata Nott is chief content officer of the Freedom Forum.Contact her via email at[emailprotected], or follow her on Twitter at@LataNott.

The rest is here:

FIRST FIVE: In crisis times, balancing safety and freedom - Salina Post

On March 20, the Organization of American States (OAS) will hold an election for its next secretary general. The incumbent, Uruguayan Luis Almagro, has rejuvenated the once-fading institution and is among the boldest pro-democracy voices in the Americas. Unsurprisingly, Venezuela is quietly mobilizing its regional allies to defeat him. Surprisingly, democratic nations from Canada to Mexico to Argentina may help Venezuela succeed.

Secretary General Almagro has earned this opposition through his principled leadership. Established in 1948 to help the Western Hemisphere become a land of liberty, by the 21st century it had a reputation for supporting dictators over democrats. In 2009, the OAS voted to readmit Cuba after a 47-year suspension, despite that countrys widespread human rights abuses. It also turned a blind eye to Hugo Chvezs and Nicols Maduros despotism in Venezuela, Evo Moraless autocratic socialism in Bolivia, Daniel Ortegas authoritarian turn in Nicaragua, and Cubas long-term communist autocracy.

Like the United Nations, the OAS often has struggled to advance its mission because it gives free nations an equal vote with authoritarian regimes.

Almagro has worked around these structural limitations since his election in 2015. Whereas previous secretaries general stayed silent, he has used his platform to force debate and focus the regions attention on violations of human rights. Nowhere have his efforts been more evident than with Venezuela.

From the start, Almagro criticized Caracas for oppressing its citizens and rigging elections. As Maduros vice-grip on the country tightened, Almagro invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter to convene the OAS for a debate on the Venezuelan crisis. He has called for the International Criminal Court to investigate Maduros crimes and, in 2019, he backed Juan Guaid as the legitimate president of Venezuela.

The secretary general also has been a strong voice for the return of democracy in Nicaragua. As with Venezuela, in 2019 he took steps to force debate on the countrys crisis and potentially suspend it.

And Almagro is a public enemy of Cuba. In 2018, he oversaw an OAS conference on Cubas human rights record, in which he pledged to speak openly, without fear, about the crimes against humanity in Cuba. By contrast, his predecessors could hardly muster an unkind word about Havanas oppression.

Given his record, the United States under President TrumpDonald John TrumpBlame game heats up as Senate motion fails Trump approves disaster declaration for coronavirus in California Why studying persistent post-traumatic headaches in soldiers matter MORE has been one of the secretary generals strongest supporters. Vice President Pence explicitly praised him in a speech at the OAS in 2018. Yet, while the U.S. has backed Almagro, Venezuela and Cuba are desperate to see him gone.

Venezuelas regime is counting on the Caribbean countries it financially supports to vote en masse for Almagros ouster. The Maduro regimes preferred candidate is Mara Fernanda Espinosa, a socialist former foreign minister from Ecuador. If elected, she surely will drop the organizations focus on her ideological allies in Caracas and Havana.

But Venezuelas Caribbean allies arent the only ones backing Espinosa. She also has the support of Argentina, Nicaragua and Mexico. These two countries likely want to return to the days when the OAS didnt stand for much, and therefore didnt ruffle any feathers.

But Canada apparently wants the same thing. By refusing to back Almagro, Canada is undermining the cause of freedom and supporting Venezuela.

So are outside groups such as Amnesty International, which has attacked Almagro for a supposed lack of action on human rights. Yet he has done more on this issue than any OAS leader in decades. If he is defeated, the OAS is all but certain to do less not more to advance human rights and democracy in the Western Hemisphere.

Currently, Almagro is hovering near the necessary majority for re-election, with several countries still uncommitted. Mexico and Canada are working behind the scenes to delay the election, giving them more time to defeat him. The United States should vigorously work to convince our allies and partners to back the secretary general. Whether he wins or not, the U.S. also should push for reforms that would make it easier to punish oppressive nations such as Venezuela and reward those countries fighting to preserve democracy in Latin America.

The Organization of American States is far from perfect, but any reforms will be harder if the OAS slides back toward weakness and moral ambiguity. Freedom without champions is an empty concept. We must back those who take the political risk to defend it. Now is the time to double down, not back down, on defending freedom and democracy across the Western Hemisphere.

Only Secretary General Luis Almagro will do so, and he deserves a second term.

Marion Smith is executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C.

The rest is here:

Freedom is up for a vote in the Western Hemisphere | TheHill - The Hill