Monthly Archives: March 2022

Viewpoint: Eugenics has become unacceptable in modern society except when it’s used to support termination of genetically abnormal fetuses – Genetic…

Posted: March 4, 2022 at 4:40 pm

American partisan politics has just been inflamed by implementation of a Texas ban on abortions once an embryos heartbeat is detected, usually after the sixth week of pregnancy. The new law gets around Roe v Wadeby making it possible for anyone to charge a person who helps a woman terminate her pregnancy, from Uber drivers to doctors. But its unclear if the Texasabortion ban will stick, and bans on the basis of anti-eugenic rhetoric may be more likely to pose a risk to abortion rights. Prenatal Nondiscrimination Acts (PRENDA) and other bans which prevent women from getting abortions on the basis of a prenatal diagnosis of disability have been gaining traction throughout the United States. AsSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said, the States might not be allowed to lawfully protect eugenic abortions, which Harvard scholar Michael Stokes Paulsenhas described asthe deliberate killing of children with a disability because of their disability.

Fundamentally,eugenics is any intervention, whether chosen by the individual or by the state, which aims to decrease the number of people with disabilities and increase the number of people with qualities that are generally considered valuable, like health, intelligence, and attractiveness. Scholars have distinguished between old eugenicsinterventions like state-sponsored sterilization andbanning relatives from marryingand contemporary eugenics or velvet eugenics. These new forms of eugenics represent the commercialization of eugenic ideas, which are then implemented by individuals rather than enacted by the state or another authoritative body.

One of the reasons abortion bans on the basis of prenatal diagnoses may have received relatively little attention is because they leave the pro-choice Left in an uncomfortable ethical position. The view that a woman has a right to an abortion for any reason is fundamentally at odds with an anti-eugenic stance. For 40 years, the Left has waged a war against eugenics which has now given ammunition to those who want to restrict or criminalize abortion. The conversation about eugenics itself has been hopelessly muddled by the constant accusation of eugenics against people, technologies, and policies, making clear thinking on this important ethical issue in the public sphere nearly impossible.

How widespread are bans against women aborting on the basis of genetic or congenital disability?Six statesMississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennesseehave prohibited abortion on the grounds of a genetic diagnosis of disability, although others likeFloridahave attempted to implement such bans. Bans are only one way of preventing these kinds of abortions. In states like Arizona, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, women who seek an abortion because their baby will die within hours or days of birthare required to be notified of the availability of perinatal hospice, which may nudge women to deliver a baby with a lethal abnormality.Other statesrequire women to be counseled on the medical condition or disability of their fetus. And in a few states, doctors areprevented from mentioning abortionas an option when women are informed their fetus is likely to have a severe disability. These laws will be difficult to enforce because, for instance, they require abortion providers to ask women why they wish to terminate their pregnancies or impose on otherwise private conversations. But asone conservative activist said, Even if its hard to enforce, its worth being passed. Its important for a state to show they are not supporting eugenics.

Many progressiveshave objectedthat the choices individual women make about whether or not to have an abortion do not constitute eugenics. But these bans and the moral confusion surrounding abortion are among the many troubling outcomes of the Lefts moral panic about eugenics. In the 1970s, the sociobiologistE.O. Wilson suggestedthat, in the future, greater knowledge of human heredity could provide us with democratically contrived eugenics. Wilson was probably right. However, this sentence, along with his biological view of human nature, have made him an extraordinarily controversial figure to this day.

Forty years later, we are still having the same conversations about what is and what is not eugenics. Forty years later,scientistscontinually feel the need todefend themselves against charges of eugenicsfrom the Left while they themselves use eugenicstodiscreditideasandscientiststhey find problematic. Fields and concepts as disparate as IQ, BMI, behavioral genetics, and even statistical analysis itself have been labeled as eugenics. Anecdotally, when Ico-authored a paperthat attempted to clarify the conversation around eugenics, it was attacked asimmoralandbeneathconsideration. In an environment where many of the intelligentsia are attempting to avoid charges of eugenics and lob charges of eugenics at others, its no wonder these conversations have become so incendiary and pointlessly confusing.

The Lefts tendency to call so many things they dont like eugenics, combined with the taboo against discussing eugenics in any meaningful way, has made the public conversation about the topic incoherent. Even as progressives maintain that abortion on the basis of disability is not eugenics, they have criticized many other individual choices as eugenics. For example, in 2019George Churchdiscussed his plans to make a genetic matchmaking app, digid8, which would prevent people with rare genetic diseases from meeting each other. This would diminish the risk of passing a disability onto their offspring (a similar approach to that used byDor Yeshorim). This private companys servicewhich people would have to opt into and pay forcaused huge controversyover itseugenic implications. Another individual choice, using genetic screening to choose an embryo to implant during invitro fertilization (IVF), is alsowidelyassociatedwitheugenics, especially ifparents select for cosmetic featureslike eye color. If the individual choice of using a dating app or engaging in embryo selection is eugenics, certainly the individual choice to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of disability also fits this definition.

Although the majority of abortions are chosen due to the financial, social, and other burdens of an unplanned pregnancy, eugenic abortions are not uncommon. Around two to three percent of pregnancies in industrialized countries like the US are affected by a birth defect or congenital abnormality. Of these, a significant number result in abortion. For example, when parents are carriers forcystic fibrosis, they terminate pregnancies screened positive for this disease95 percent of the time. In the developed world, fetuses diagnosed withspina bifidaare terminated63 percentof the time, and 83 percent of fetuses diagnosed withanencephalyare aborted. In the case ofDown syndrome, the US has one of the lowest rates of terminationat 67 percent. But in other developed countries, therate is 90 percent or higher. Even in the case of unplanned pregnancies, usually terminated without prenatal screening,five percent of women chose abortionciting concerns about the health of the fetus.According to one womanwho sought an abortion, The medication Im on for bipolar disorder is known to cause birth defects and we decided its akin to child abuse if you know youre bringing your child into the world with a higher risk for things.

To add to the confusion about the term, many on the Left have embraced the idea that some forms of discrimination against black people and women is eugenic because some of the eugenics interventions of the 20th centurytargeted black women for sterilization. This is another domain in which the label of eugenics is being incoherently applied. For example,Project Preventionis an organization that pays women who are addicted to drugs and alcohol $300, plus medical fees and follow up visits, to go on long-term birth control. These women can choose whether to get an IUD, a hormonal implant, or surgical sterilization.One of the main reasonscritics have called Project Prevention eugenic is that20 percentof Project Prevention clients are black. But black women choose abortion even more disproportionately. More than a third of all abortionsare among black women. Does the chance to get $300 and free medical care really make only one of these choices eugenics? According toMichael Stokes Paulsen:

Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce adisparate impactresulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses?Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimesused, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposesspecifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. [Emphasis in original.]

By the same anti-eugenics logic of disparate impact on minorities and women, abortion is eugenic. Furthermore, an intervention that could reduce the number of black women seeking abortions, providing them incentives or free contraception, would be a nonstarter on the Right because it would offer free birth control, and a nonstarter on the Left because it would be considered racist and eugenics.

Although old eugenics is thought to be wildly unpopular (but may not be), the evidence of the popularity of contemporary eugenics is evident from how readily the public have taken it up. Many of eugenicss staunchest opponents on the Left not only dont appreciate the extent to which abortion is eugenic, they also dont realize the extent to which the standard of prenatal care in the developed world is transparently eugenic in its aims. Routine prenatal care in the United Statesultrasounds checking for normal anatomy, recommended genetic screening for women with a family history of specific heritable disorders and women over 35 and so onare, to a great extent, intended to demonstrate that the unborn child is free from abnormality, malformation, or disability.

For example, thenuchal translucency scan, provided to nearly every pregnant woman in the developed world regardless of risk, measures fluid buildup in the fetus which can indicate whether the child will have congenital heart defects, Down syndrome, or other impairments. Some parents who receive these tests simply want to be prepared for any possible health conditions or disabilities in the child. But most parents receive these screenings with the intention of terminating the pregnancy of a child that is likely to have cognitive, physical, or other disabilities. Because of the bioethical implications, disability activist Rosemarie Garland-Thomsonhas endorsed the ideathat we should stop engaging in routine prenatal testing for any conditions, except very, very carefully identified and adjudicated conditions that really are terrible, that really are incompatible with life. Finally, a 2019 study found that 22.6 percent of women who were against abortionchanged their mindswhen faced with medical complications. So, the judgement against abortion on the basis of fetal disability comes down, to some extent, to good luck.

The view that a woman has ana prioriright to an abortion results in some strange bioethical consequences. Even though it doesnt really fit the actual definition of eugenics, choosing the sex of a childeither by picking a male or female embryo or bysperm sortinghas been associated with eugenicsand banned in countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. Ironically, in some countries, sex selection is only allowed if a disability, like muscular dystrophy, is sex-linked, which means youre only allowed to practice sex selection in the name of eugenics. A woman in Canada, meanwhile, would not be allowed to choose an embryo of a particular sex to implant using IVF, but would be allowed tohave an abortionbecause she didnt want to have a girl.

Something similar could happen with a new technique calledpolygenic screening(PGS), a way of screening embryos for characteristics determined by multiple genes. Polygenic screening, you guessed it, has been widely attacked as eugenic. At the moment, a woman using in vitro fertilization can screen her embryos with PGS and pick the embryo with the lowest risk ofschizophrenia or diabetes. But its possible that in the future, women in many countries might not be allowed to use PGS to select an embryo with specific characteristics they desire, but they might be able to undergo prenatal tests that would provide them with the same information (see here for an exampleof using prenatal testing to sequence an embryos whole genome). That means a woman might not be permitted to select an embryo without diabetes using PGS, but would be allowed to have an abortion if prenatal testing reveals that her child is likely to have diabetes.

Many of the arguments against eugenics rest on the claim that exceptions are a slippery slopethatclassifying some personal attributes and disordersas desirable or undesirable, respectively, will inevitably lead to the mistreatment of disabled people or genocide. But this hasnt been the case in countries like Denmark and Israel, where the state pays for prenatal testing, abortions in the case of fetal abnormality, and generous benefits for their disabled citizens. And if eugenics truly is a slippery slope, then the Left should join the Right in enforcing bans on abortion in the case of fetal disability and abnormality.

In particular, a coherent anti-eugenic stance would require the Left to align themselves with the Rights intention to limit the number of weeks a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy. Bans on abortion after 10 or 20 weeks disproportionately impact women who seek to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal abnormalities, as testing usually occurs between weeks10 and 15 of pregnancy.As Garland-Thomson argues, abortion without any information about the fetus is less ethically problematic. Those who are consistently anti-eugenics should endorse bans after week 10 of pregnancy, because it ensures that women are terminating their pregnancy for reasons that are unlikely to be related to fetal disorder.

It is ethically incoherent to be against all forms of eugenics and also allow a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including the discovery of genetic abnormality. But the Left has become entangled in a contradiction of its own making. It created a moral panic and used denunciation to shut down discussion of what forms of eugenics may or may not be permissible. This tars many different forms of voluntary reproductive intervention with the same brush as state-mandated sterilization and genocide. Ultimately, the dismal state of progressive discourse about eugenics may produce regressive outcomesit is already being used to prevent the implementation of new reproductive technologies, and it may end up further costing women their reproductive freedom.

Diana Fleischman is an evolutionary psychologist. Find Diana on Twitter @sentientist

A version of this article was originally posted at Quillette and is reposted here with permission. Quillette can be found on Twitter @Quillette

Continue reading here:

Viewpoint: Eugenics has become unacceptable in modern society except when it's used to support termination of genetically abnormal fetuses - Genetic...

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Viewpoint: Eugenics has become unacceptable in modern society except when it’s used to support termination of genetically abnormal fetuses – Genetic…

Cognitive Testing Is Still Racist, Researchers Explain – Being Patient

Posted: at 4:40 pm

By Simon Spichak, MSc | March 4th, 2022

In the last decade, medical institutions practicing within the field of neuroscience have begun to reckon with their racist past a necessary step for improving diagnostic cognitive tests for Alzheimers and related dementias. Many of these tests incorporate race-norming adjustments to test scores. The big problem is, race-norming adjustments arent based on evidence. They are based on historic prejudice.

Dr. Darshali Vyas, a clinical fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital researches the integration of racial biases in algorithms used to predict health outcomes and diagnose disease.

By embedding race into the basic data and decisions of health care, these algorithms propagate race-based medicine, Vyas and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020.

While age and years of education are commonly adjusted for in these cognitive tests, they cannot account for early-life segregation in education, quality of education or discrimination, according to Lisa Barnes, professor at Rush Medical College. That makes it difficult to untangle whether lower scores are a result of cognitive impairment or are simply artifacts of cultural forces related to racism or policies that promoted discrimination.

As a result, many of the cognitive tests that serve as the gold standard for diagnosing dementia are fundamentally flawed. And these problems arent new: According to historians and scholars, race-based adjustments originated as far back as the 15th and 16th centuries.

Since the 19th century, some psychologists and politicians have supported racist and eugenic policies through IQ tests, suggesting, for example, that enslaved people were less intelligent than their white owners. The underlying presence of these beliefs in cognitive science quietly strengthened the idea that there were genetically distinct races, and as a result, employment aptitude tests and cognitive tests were later adjusted based on race, under the assumption that Black people would score lower. This is called race-norming. Because of these inherently skewed designs, today, people with European ancestry who generally have increased access to resources and education still perform better than Black people on these gold-standard diagnostic tools.

As a result, Barnes says, researchers need to better contextualize these test scores and gather more data on race-based cognitive health biomarkers if they have any hope of accurately measuring cognitive health in Black individuals. Without taking these steps, the current set of diagnostic tests are not effective at setting objective cognitive health benchmarks to compare different racial groups to one another.

A prevailing notion in the field is that African American individuals have a two to three times higher incidence of [Alzheimers] than white individuals, she wrote. Although the burden of dementia is certainly high in the African American population, inconsistencies in the existing data and an important lack of data where it is most needed mean that we cannot be confident that the evidence supports this claim.

These adjustments were highlighted earlier last year when 20,000 former professional football players sued the National Football League (NFL) on the basis that race-norming impacted their cognitive diagnosis and treatment, allowing the NFL to withhold compensation.

Black former players are automatically assumed (through a statistical manipulation called race-norming) to have started with worse cognitive functioning than white former players, the lawsuit reads. As a result, if a Black former player and a white former player receive the exact same raw scores on a battery of tests designed to measure their current cognitive functioning, the Black player is presumed to have suffered less impairment, and he is therefore less likely to qualify for compensation.

There are steps researchers can take to help address these problems, Barnes told Being Patient. Those include better contextualizing a persons test score, and tailoring cognitive tests to race and ethnicity. Beyond neuropsychological testing, she added, biomarker studies with racially and ethnically diverse participant groups are essential to understanding how Alzheimers manifests in different populations.

While it isnt a welcome thought, it is important to consider the history of racism and eugenics which has shaped aspects of medicine, impacting the way cognitive function is measured.

View original post here:

Cognitive Testing Is Still Racist, Researchers Explain - Being Patient

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Cognitive Testing Is Still Racist, Researchers Explain – Being Patient

Darwinian Influences on the Alt-Right – Discovery Institute

Posted: at 4:40 pm

Photo: Richard Spencer, by Vas Panagiotopoulos [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Editors note: The following is excerpted from Chapter 8 of Richard Weikarts new book,How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism.

The term alt-right has come to have a pretty elastic meaning, with the popular news media applying it to all sorts of groups. Here we focus on the core of those who originally called themselves the alt-right. Many of the leading personalities in this movement and Kevin MacDonald is one of them promote Darwinism as an integral element of their racist worldview. The alt-right is generally understood to be a movement of white Americans that embraces human inequality, especially racial inequality, while promoting the idea that one should identify with and promote the interests of ones own racial group.1In many respects the alt-right is simply a repackaging of neo-Nazism and white nationalism. From my survey of the most influential alt-right online periodicals, it is obvious that Darwinism serves the same ideological function for them that it did for Nazis, neo-Nazis, and earlier white nationalists. It plays a central role in justifying their views on racial inequality and eugenics.

In 201617 one of the most publicized figures in the alt-right movement was Richard Spencer, founder of the onlineRadix Journal. In his speeches Spencer sometimes quotes Nazi propaganda in the original German, and some members of his audience have been known to give Nazi salutes. In a 2017 essay co-authored with F. Roger Devlin, Spencer insisted that racial differences emerged because of evolutionary processes. He outlined the basic evolutionary story of humans originating in Africa and then migrating to Europe and Asia. He argued that group differences exist as consequences of evolution by natural selection and racial differences are a natural and normal consequence of human evolution. He also asserted, The preference for ones own race is a product of our evolutionary history. Thus, in Spencers view, white nationalism is hard-wired in our biology. Spencer also embraces the Darwinian explanation so prevalent among Nordic racists and in alt-right circles, stating, The higher intelligence and lower crime rates of Whites and East Asians as compared with Africans may be due in large part to the selective pressure of cold winters.2

SpencersRadix Journalalso publishes numerous articles promoting Darwinian evolution as the basis for their so-called racial realism. In explaining the fundamentals of the alt-right, Guilluame Durocher wrote, What is our reason? We believe in Darwin and evolutionary science. Man is, at bottom, a biological entity and, in particular, his potentialities are circumscribed by his genetic heritage. This must be recognized so life may continue its upward evolution, towards the stars, rather than back into the muck. Durocher then criticized liberals for inconsistency, because they say they believe in Darwinism, but then refuse to apply it to public policy.3

In a different white nationalist venue, theOccidental Observer, Durocher expressed sympathy with the Third Reich, noting, The National Socialists proposed a total reformation of society around biocentric norms. This was based on the revolutionary insights of Darwin (which Hitler himself compared to the Copernican revolution), which revealed the natural evolutionary forces which had shaped all life, including all human life. Durocher calls Nazism a self-conscious group evolutionary strategy (GES) designed to further the interests [of] a genetically-defined German people, and he seems to revel in Nazi atrocities. He states, The National Socialists observed that in Nature, violence is absolutely fundamental to the survival and development of life, and they sought to be in harmony with this cosmic reality. Durocher argues as I have in the earlier sections of this book that Darwinism is a central, defining feature of Nazi ideology.4

In 2016 an anonymous article in SpencersRadix Journalpromoted the Darwinian-inspired ideas of the early 20th-century racist ideologue Madison Grant. The author emphasized the social Darwinist underpinnings of Grants ideology and recommended his book,Conquest of a Continent, which is a grand vision of bio-cultural struggle and evolution, in which demography comes alive. The author also promotes Darwinism as the key to promoting white nationalism when he writes, Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared sense of destiny with their extended kin group. Darwinism is seemingly more effective in rallying Whites, especially elite Whites, than religious feelings.5

Another prominent figure in the alt-right movement is Jared Taylor, who strongly influenced Spencer. Taylor has also published articles clearly expressing the centrality of Darwinism in his worldview. In 2019 the white nationalist websiteAmerican Renaissancerepublished a 1992 essay by Taylor, where he positively reviews Roger PearsonsRace, Intelligence and Bias in Academe. At the top of the article is a picture of Charles Darwin, and the essay begins:

The discovery of genetics and the development of the theory of evolution were two of the most potentially far-reaching scientific advances of all time. By the turn of the century, thanks to the work of Gregor Mendel (18221884) and Charles Darwin (18081882), man for the first time had the knowledge with which to direct his own biological destiny. Rather than leave his further development to the genetic accidents that had governed it for millions of years, he could consciously and deliberately improve his very nature.6

Taylor not only embraces a social Darwinist version of racism, but he also endorses Darwinian-inspired eugenics. Also, in 2019American Renaissancerepublished one of Taylors 2006 book reviews, where he endorses Richard LynnsRace Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. According to Taylor, Prof. Lynn argues that it was the demands of colder, non-African environments that forced the pace of evolution in intelligence and gave rise to race differences.7As we have already seen, this is a standard theme of Nordic racist ideology, which underpins their mistaken view that blacks are intellectually inferior to white people. In 2009 Taylor approvingly reviewed the bookErectus Walks amongst Us, by Richard C. Fuerle. Taylor calls this book a primer on evolution and genetics, a catalog of how populations differ, an introduction to sociobiology and the concept of genetic interests, and a plea for white survival. Taylor endorsed Fuerles evolutionary analysis of Africans inherent biological tendency toward crime and sociopathy. For example, Taylor explains, In the tropics, where mother and child had a better chance of surviving, it would have been maladaptive not to rape. This may explain high rates of rape among African populations.7(This is another example of white nationalists cherry-picking data; it is true that a few African countries have high incidences of rape; however, some African countries, such as Kenya and Uganda, have significantly lower rates than Sweden or Germany or Norway.8)

Other alt-right figures, such as John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, and many others, have published articles lauding Darwinism in alt-right websites and periodicals, such asVDARE,Takis Magazine, theOccidental Observer, andAmerican Renaissance. These carry titles such as Darwin on the Rise and Fall of the Human Races, The Evolution of Racial Differences in Morality, and Ed Dutton with an Evolutionary Perspective on the Rape of Finland.9The alt-right proponent Frank Hilliard has even published an essay entitled The Alternative Right Belongs to the Darwinians on the Council of European Canadians website.10Not all alt-right essays with Darwinian content have such obvious titles, but many articles on these websites recycle the evolutionary ideas I have already explained above.

The overlapping categories of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and alt-right proponents regularly invoke Darwinism to try to demonstrate that their case for racial inegalitarianism and white superiority is scientific. Indeed, by their own admission, Darwinism is central to their ideology, and they regularly ridicule creationists and intelligent design advocates as ignorant. They believe that racial differences have been shaped by natural selection in the struggle for existence. Just like early 20th-century Nordic racists, some of whom they still promote, they claim that the harsher environment in Europe and Asia provided selective pressure that caused Europeans and Asians to become more intelligent and more cooperative than black Africans. They want to promote further human evolution by practicing racial segregation and introducing eugenics policies. Many of them see nature as their god, and promoting evolution as their gods highest command. Darwinism is thus not only crucial to their explanation of how the world is today, but it is central to their vision of morality and public policy.

Read more from the original source:

Darwinian Influences on the Alt-Right - Discovery Institute

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Darwinian Influences on the Alt-Right – Discovery Institute

Freedom of speech bill draws concern from Idaho higher education institutions – Post Register

Posted: at 4:39 pm

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

The rest is here:
Freedom of speech bill draws concern from Idaho higher education institutions - Post Register

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Freedom of speech bill draws concern from Idaho higher education institutions – Post Register

The Republican Party Is Waging a War Against Personal Freedom and Free Expression – Jacobin magazine

Posted: at 4:39 pm

In recent months, Republican lawmakers in Texas and Florida have rallied behind a suite of efforts related to schools, children, issues of race, and issues of sexuality. At a glance, each represents an isolated case study in conservatisms wider cultural offensive. Taken together, however, all tell a much larger story about the Rights professed commitment to personal freedom and freedom of expression and the inconsistency with which its partisans apply their own chosen idioms.

The past decade has seen conservatives aggressively rally around a narrative about censorious college professors and an intellectually stifled culture increasingly averse to ideas some find uncomfortable. More broadly, the Right has tended to present itself as the only reliable steward of free speech in a society which now deems certain questions out of bounds and has seen the ongoing creep of a state empowered to suppress individual expression. However you come down on what are sometimes complex debates about education or pedagogy, its a story thats simply impossible to square with the kinds of moves Republican politicians are now willing to entertain, let alone what many are already using political power to do.

Recent developments in two states are especially instructive in this respect.

Last month, Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick signaled hell push to end tenure for new hires at the states public universities and colleges in a move to combat indoctrination and the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) also opening the door to reforming local laws so that those who currently have tenure can have it revoked if authorities decide theyve engaged in wrongthink.

In Florida, which has also become a CRT battleground, the Republican-controlled house of representatives just approved a measure to prohibit discussions concerned with gender identity and sexual orientation in classrooms. Though the bills language refers specifically to children in a specific age range, its many critics rightly point out an obvious loophole that could potentially make its implications even more expansive the text referring to classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity . . . in kindergarten through grade 3 with the caveat or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. Also empowering parents to sue districts perceived to have violated the new rules, the bill is transparently a first step toward what some conservatives clearly hope will be the eventual purging of some discussions from public schools altogether.

Given the Rights espoused commitment to freedom of speech and opposition to state overreach, you might think this would be a difficult circle to square. In relation to both CRT and discussions of sexual identity, however, the favored frame has become the idea of parental choice: a rhetorically useful way of packaging the agenda of social conservatism in the language of individual freedom and moral neutrality. One only needs to return to Texas to see just how hollow and selective the Rights application of this very concept actually is.

In what is easily the most grotesque of all the various efforts Republicans are currently pushing at the state level, Governor Greg Abbott last month asked the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to launch investigations into instances of what he calls abusive procedures related to parents, children, and gender identity. Effectively, it means that the parents of transgender children can now be criminally investigated for affirming their childs identity and that a range of licensed professionals from doctors to teachers will be required to snitch on those who do. Less than a week on from Abbotts decree, two Texan parents one of whom is a DFPS employee are already being investigated (and are rightly suing).

Republican lawmakers, in short, will embrace the concept of parental autonomy in one instance and abandon it in the next. Freedom of speech is said to be under attack, but teachers and college faculty must face professional discipline if they transgress against the standards handed down by politicians. The state and its organs, it is said, should remain neutral on particular questions, but are also morally obligated to criminalize and punish certain lifestyles and viewpoints.

In one obvious sense, theres no internal consistency here the operating principle being free expression for me but not for thee. Then again, this apparent lack of consistency may offer us a deeper clue about whats really animating the Rights wider cultural offensive. Parse the language and aims of these various efforts, and its clear that their inspiration is nothing more nor less than a socially conservative idea of society in which individuals have prescribed roles and identities and the function of public institutions is to help bolster this natural order. Look at various polls on a range of issues, and its very difficult to make a convincing case that anything resembling such a worldview is shared by a majority of Americans which is probably one reason conservatives have tended to package their objectives in the bogus rhetoric of neutrality and choice.

Unfortunately, as Jennifer Berkshire observed in an essay for the Nation following Novembers Republican victory in Virginia, liberals embrace of instrumentalist slogans like College, Knowledge and Jobs and Get Skilled, Get a Job, Give Back has left Democrats ill-equipped to mount the more principled and holistic defense of public education that the Rights current onslaught demands. Since the 1990s, Americas liberals have increasingly seen the state as little more than a vehicle for facilitating markets and individual opportunities within them. Conversely, the Right understands that education potentially has much a thicker role to play and is more than happy to make heavy-handed use of the state to impose its minoritarian value system on public schools and beyond.

Given the creeping privatization of education and the punishing nature of higher ed tuition fees, its hardly possible for mainstream liberals to claim their politics have helped foster a vibrant culture of free inquiry or expression. Nevertheless, the kinds of measures at play in places like Florida and Texas are clearly irreconcilable with the binary fable of censorious liberals and freedom-loving conservatives through which the Right has increasingly framed recent debates.

Read more here:
The Republican Party Is Waging a War Against Personal Freedom and Free Expression - Jacobin magazine

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on The Republican Party Is Waging a War Against Personal Freedom and Free Expression – Jacobin magazine

Publications – Testimony Before The Tennessee General Assembly House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee on House Bill 859 In Reference to…

Posted: at 4:39 pm

Testimony Before The Tennessee General Assembly House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee on House Bill 859 In Reference to Censorship on Social Media Platforms

The Heartland Institute

March 2, 2022

Chairman Powers and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for holding a hearing on House Bill 859, legislation intended to challenge Big Tech when it comes to Tennesseans rights to political and religious free speech.

My name is Samantha Fillmore, and I am a State Government Relations Manager at The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a 38-year-old independent, national, nonprofit organization and our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Heartland is headquartered in Illinois and focuses on providing elected officials on all levels reliable and timely research on important policy issues such as Big Tech censorship.

Throughout 2021 and the beginning of this year we have had 85 pieces of legislation in 36 states all attempting to challenge Big Tech censorship. The volume of bills on this topic throughout the nation is indicative of the fact that many Americans recognize we are entering into a dangerous period of censorship at the hands of Big Tech oligarchs.

In the blink of an eye, the emergence of social media platforms has elevated the national conversation and political discourse to a size and scope nearly unimaginable a decade ago. The associated emerging technologies and mediums promised democratization of free speech in a way never dreamed of. Free speech and political activism, once the realm of partisans and professional pundits, was accessible such that people who were once spectators were now engaged.

However, this mass communication network is managed by a handful of powerful tech titans, who are shielded from liability and operate as monopolies. The consolidation of this power to these titans has now effectively erased the empowerment of millions of Americans and their newfound voices.

Where it has empowered voices and people across the political spectrum, it has also empowered the voices that seek to divide, misinform, and manipulate us. I would like to tell you that the very platforms on which those messages are spread have been fair and impartial, yet the truth is that they havent been.

The number of social network users worldwide reached 3.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to increase to 4.4 billion by 2025. This phenomenon was further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. A Harris Poll conducted in the spring of 2020 found that 46 to 51 percent of American adults were using social media at higher rates than they were pre-pandemic. In addition, U.S. social network ad spending is projected to rise 21.3 percent from the already staggering $40 billion spent in 2020.

All of these statistics provide ample evidence that social networks have become so much more than a host for expression, memes, and life updates among friends and family. In todays world, social media companies have become a major sector of the U.S. economy, influencing corporate successes and failures.

Opponents of this legislation would argue that such censorship is appropriate because "market forces" have allowed these titans to rise to power. To that, I submit to you that these instances are not the product of a healthy free market but rather the result of a corrupted market.

Moreover, private corporations have no more of a right to suppress Americans free speech than does the government. Americans would never stand for a neighbor breaking into their house to forcibly take their possessions, just as the same would not stand for a rogue policeman. In this case, one is a private entity while one is a government entity. Similarly, Big Tech corporations have no more right to suppress your free speech rights than does the government. Government exists to defend our unalienable rights and especially our unalienable free speech rights from being suppressed by third parties.

Our right to free speech rights exist independent of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights do not exist because the government benevolently gave them to us in the First Amendment; our free speech rights exist because they are innate human rights that are unalienable, either by the government or any other actor. Tennessee has every right to independently safeguard our unalienable free speech rights from suppression by private corporations and that is what is HB 859 aims to accomplish.

This legislation would inject autonomy back to the state level for Tennessee lawmakers and constituents alike.

So here we are today, challenging the behavior of Big Tech for citizens of the state we all live in. To challenge the argument Big Tech perpetuates. The argument that they have a free-speech right to suppress other peoples free speech. This rationale would appear in a George Orwell novel. It is evident that Big Tech lacks transparency and respect for the moral obligation it has as a primary outlet for political discourse in our nation and the dissemination of information of public import.

A dominant user platform for speech simply does not have any right to silence Americans free speech rights. That is especially the case, given that social media and the internet are the primary means by which Americans today share information and ideas with each other. Respecting free speech rights on the primary means by which Americans communicate with each other is not forced speech in violation of the First Amendment.

House Bill 859 is good legislation, promoting overall free speech for residents of the Volunteer State. This bill sends the message to Tennessee constituents that clear and robust public debate is sacrosanct and any action or failure to act to ensure a robust debate will be met with hard questions, and if necessary, enabling policies.

Finally, I would like to submit to you that on the issue of freedom of speech, more speech is always the answer, never less.

Thank you for your time today.

For more information about The Heartland Institutes work, please visit our websites at http://www.heartland.org or http:/news.heartland.org, or call Samantha Fillmore at 312/377-4000. You can reach Samantha Fillmore by email at SFillmore@heartland.org.

Continued here:
Publications - Testimony Before The Tennessee General Assembly House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee on House Bill 859 In Reference to...

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Publications – Testimony Before The Tennessee General Assembly House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee on House Bill 859 In Reference to…

The First Amendment Trumps Another Restriction on Trademark Registrations – JD Supra

Posted: at 4:39 pm

On February 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in In Re: Elster, overturned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards (TTAB) refusal to grant a trademark registration on the phrase TRUMP TOO SMALL for use on T-shirts. The Federal Circuit held that the Lanham Acts prohibition on the registration of marks including the surname of a living individual unconstitutionally restricted free speech in violation of the First Amendment as applied to this mark.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) initially rejected Elsters proposed trademark on two grounds: (1) the mark used former President Trumps name without his written consent, in violation of section 2(c) of the Lanham Act; and (2) the mark falsely suggested a connection with former President Trump, in violation of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. Elster appealed both decisions, and the TTAB affirmed based on section 2(c) grounds. Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act prohibits in relevant part the registration of a trademark that [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent. 15 U.S.C. 1052(c). Elster appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the TTABs decision.

This ruling extends a trend of courts striking down Lanham Act trademark restrictions based on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In the last five years, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional two Lanham Act provisions: (1) prohibiting the registration of marks containing derogatory terms and phrases (Matal v. Tam); and (2) prohibiting the registration of immoral or scandalous matter (Iancu v. Brunetti). While those Supreme Court cases did not address the provision at issue in Elster, the Federal Circuit noted that they do establish that a trademark represents private, not government, speech entitled to some form of First Amendment protection.

Before diving into the analysis, the Federal Circuit observed that [t]he First Amendment interests here are undoubtedly substantial. . . . The right to criticize public men is one of the prerogatives of American citizenship. Indeed, the Federal Circuit called criticism of government officials speech that is . . . at the heart of the First Amendment. In response, the TTAB argued that the First Amendment interests implicated by section 2(c) are outweighed by the governments substantial interest in protecting state-law privacy and publicity rights, grounded in tort and unfair competition law.

The Federal Circuit considered both of the TTABs arguments. First, as to the right of privacy, the Court held that the government has no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of President Trump, the least private name in American life, from any injury to his personal feelings caused by the political criticism that Elsters mark advances. Without any actual malice, there can be no plausible claim that President Trump enjoys a right of privacy protecting him from criticism.

Second, the Court held that the right of publicity does not support a government restriction on the use of a mark because the mark is critical of a public official without his or her consent. Indeed, all the law that the government cited recognized this. For example, the only case that the government cited involving parody or criticism of public figures held that the sale of parody baseball cards featuring MLB players names and likenesses was protected speech under the First Amendment and did not violate the players right of publicity.

The Court acknowledged that the government does have interests to do with the right of publicity: first in protecting against copying or misappropriation of an existing mark, and second in preventing the issuance of marks that falsely suggest that President Trump has endorsed a particular product or service. However, the Court held that these interests arent implicated here, as there is no claim that this mark misappropriates Trumps name or an existing trademark, nor is there a claim that the mark suggests that Trump endorsed Elsters product.

In sum, the Court held that the government does not have a privacy or publicity interest in restricting speech critical of government officials or public figures in the trademark contextat least absent actual malice. The Court left open what would be necessary to prove actual malice. It did not address, whether, for example, biting criticism like calling former President Trump too small could be actual malice in some contexts.

The Court also stopped short of holding that Section 2(c) was facially unconstitutional. Since Elster raised only an as-applied challenge, the Court did not decide that issue, but commented that the provision may be overbroad insofar as it leaves the PTO no discretion to exempt trademarks that advance parody, criticism, commentary on matters of public importance, artistic transformation, or any other First Amendment interests. So, this question is left for another day.

Given that, as Elster wrote in his opening brief in 2021, [t]his case marks the third time in six years that this court must decide whether a statutory restriction on trademark registration complies with the First Amendment, it is probable that the question of whether Section 2(c) is unconstitutional will come up again.

Politicians and popular figures that are already open to public criticism are also now more likely to be open to criticism through trademark registrations. This increases their need to add monitoring trademark applications to their reputation management effortsespecially since phrases such as I hate XYZ Company or I dont really like Ted Cruz are now more likely to be granted trademark registration.

After all, those marks do not infringe on XYZ Company or Ted Cruzs right of privacy, do not misappropriate XYZ Companys or Ted Cruzs name or existing trademarks, and do not suggest that XYZ Company or Ted Cruz endorse a product showing that mark. If finding actual malice is the only way for the TTAB to reject a trademark registration for a phrase criticizing a public figure, Elster may have opened the gates for such marks.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Trumps Another Restriction on Trademark Registrations - JD Supra

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on The First Amendment Trumps Another Restriction on Trademark Registrations – JD Supra

Commentary: Reexamining the value of studying history | Columnists | elkodaily.com – Elko Daily Free Press

Posted: at 4:39 pm

DAVID M. SHRIBMAN

We have just heard the president's State of the Union address. It was delivered in a fraught time by a man freighted with responsibility. He hit the right notes and struck the right tone. We have domestic differences, to be sure, but we are united in our disdain for Vladimir Putin, his expansionist impulses, his delusional view of history. Men and women of both parties generally applauded at the appropriate times. It was the sort of American moment that is rare in today's America.

The invasion of Ukraine has had many effects on us. It has caused us to reflect on the nature and value of freedom at a time when both are contested because of the spread of the coronavirus and the controversies about mask and vaccine mandates. It has prompted us to think about the role of government and elections at a time when the integrity of both have been challenged like never before, or at least since the onset of the Civil War. It has moved us to examine our views of what is a civil society and how we can build one together while retaining our separate views on the issues of the day.

People are also reading

It also has caused us to think anew about the value of studying and knowing a bit about history. The number of history majors in our universities has fallen, dropping especially after the Great Recession and amid legitimate concerns about future employment. Unless you are seeking to teach in a classroom or take over my column, the study of history may seem like a luxury, an indulgence.

But this period may have changed all that. And as proof, let me go back in history and offer another president's State of the Union address, given at another time of challenge. Let's tune in, if just for a few excerpts, to what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his 1940 remarks -- and let's ponder whether Joe Biden might have delivered these very remarks Tuesday.

FDR: I have repeatedly warned that, whether we like it or not, the daily lives of American citizens will, of necessity, feel the shock of events on other continents. This is no longer mere theory; because it has been definitely proved to us by the facts of yesterday and today.

This was "definitely proved to us" by the facts of the past week, when "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" -- the history-minded among you will recognize the phrase from Neville Chamberlain that captured his view of world affairs, leading to his capitulation to Adolf Hitler in 1938 -- sent shock waves across the United States.

FDR: To say that the domestic well-being of ... Americans is deeply affected by the well-being or the ill-being of the populations of other nations is only to recognize in world affairs the truth that we all accept in home affairs.

Here Roosevelt was stating the obvious to a nation where large portions of the population were oblivious to the obvious. We are more conscious of this now, and yet fresh voices continue to question whether the country should curtail its global engagement.

FDR: We must look ahead and see the effect on our own future if all the small nations of the world have their independence snatched from them or become mere appendages to relatively vast and powerful military systems.

This is a chilling sentence, aimed at Czechoslovakia (already in tatters) and Poland (divided by the Nazis and Soviets), and looking ahead to Romania (at the time neutral, but seven months from a fascist coup) and Greece (victim of the Nazis within a year).

FDR: It is, of course, true that the record of past centuries includes destruction of many small nations, the enslavement of peoples, and the building of empires on the foundation of force. But wholly apart from the greater international morality which we seek today, we recognize the practical fact that with modern weapons and modern conditions, modern man can no longer lead a civilized life if we are to go back to the practice of wars and conquests of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

This is a passage with special resonance today, as Mr. Putin, fashioning himself the heir to Peter the Great (1672-1725) and behaving as the heir to Josef Stalin (1878-1953), is operating out of a worldview centuries old, even as he possesses nuclear weapons invented in the last century and enhanced hypersonic weapons refined only in the last decade.

FDR: Of course, the peoples of other nations have the right to choose their own form of Government. But we in this nation still believe that such choice should be predicated on certain freedoms which we think are essential everywhere. We know that we ourselves shall never be wholly safe at home unless other governments recognize such freedoms.

In these three sentences, Roosevelt harkens to one of his political heroes, Woodrow Wilson, who is in disrepute today for racist views and for the airy idealism that filled his Fourteen Points. But some of those Points are relevant to us today; several directly covered the broad thesis of national self-determination. Mr. Putin might be reminded that one of them asked for special consideration for Russia, where the Communist Revolution had occurred months earlier: "The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy."

A year later Roosevelt would use his State of the Union address to set out his Four Freedoms -- freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The artist Norman Rockwell made them part of American iconography.

The freedom from fear seems especially poignant to us today. No one who has viewed Rockwell's portrayal -- a worried couple tucking their two children into bed -- can fail to contrast that with the image shot 'round the world on CNN of the worried mother of two seeking shelter in a Kharkiv subway station. "We woke up at 5 because we heard some explosions," she said. "We were scared."

The American father in the Rockwell painting held a newspaper. The words "BOMBINGS" and "HORROR" were in the headline. The Ukrainian mother in the subway station held her family's food. It was a bag of potato chips.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Original post:
Commentary: Reexamining the value of studying history | Columnists | elkodaily.com - Elko Daily Free Press

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Commentary: Reexamining the value of studying history | Columnists | elkodaily.com – Elko Daily Free Press

Opinion: Jackass-ocracy harassment of Sisolaks another example of how far we’ve fallen | McGinness – Reno Gazette Journal

Posted: at 4:39 pm

This opinion column was written by RGJ engagement editor Brett McGinness.

It was disheartening to see two grown men harassing Gov. Steve Sisolak and First Lady Kathy Sisolak in a Las Vegas restaurant this past weekend.

Despite Nevadas fast-growing population and increasing business and political clout, it still can feel less like a state and more like a large neighborhood, where its not surprising to see state officials out and about without an entourage or security detail.

This weekends incident pushes us further away from that neighborly small-town mentality.

Youre in here without security? one of the men asked. Im surprised you have the balls to be out here in public, punk.

Set aside (for now) the abhorrent threats of violence and theracist, baseless conspiracy theories these men shouted at the Sisolaks. This confrontationalbehavior isn't fit for political disagreements, or anywhere else in polite society it'sbehavior that would get anyone immediately kicked out of any bar in the state.

None of us should be OK with this.

And most of us arent. State Republicans and Democrats alike condemned the confrontation.Nevada GOP chair Michael J. McDonald wrote, "There is no place for the behavior and violent threats against the Governor."Attorney General Aaron Ford wrote on Twitter, Real patriots don't act like this, and anyone perpetuating these actions should be held accountable. Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, the current front-runner to challenge Sisolak for the governorship, wrote, "Hateful verbal abuse and violent threats have no place in our political system."

On the other hand, Las Vegas City Councilwoman and Sisolak challenger Michele Fiore hastried to playit both ways, saying she does"not condone the personal attacks made in that confrontation" but also, "If you look at the history of dictators, pitchforks will be next."

Reno lawyer Joey Gilbert, another Republican gubernatorial candidate, said he couldn't condemn the actions due to freedom of speech concerns.

"While the comments directed toward Sisolak's job performance as Governor could not have been pleasant for him to hear," Gilbert said, "I'm sure he joins with me in agreeing with the following historical statements about the importance of supporting our First Amendment right to free speech."

Joey Gilbert is right. The men dohave the legal right to speak their minds about politics. But it sets an extremely low and shameful bar for our political discourse to simply say,"Hey, it'snot illegal."

Were swiftly descending into Rule by Incivility deferring to whoevers willing to be the loudest, make the biggest scene, act like the biggest jackass. In the absence of solid, fact-basedarguments, just be louder, repeat yourself more, and shout over their responses.

One of our two major political parties used to call itself The Party for Grown-ups but have proven to be anything but. The other one says, When they go low, we go high but have engaged in similar public harassment of politicians and pundits for years.

Its long past time to get back to the fundamentals of democracy. Its a good start to see voices throughout the political spectrum condemn the ambush of the governor and first lady. But we need to demand better from ourselves, from our neighbors, and especially members of our political tribes.

Were the worlds oldest democracy. Lets start acting like grown-ups again.

Brett McGinness is the engagement editor for the Reno Gazette Journal. He's also the writer of The Reno Memo a free newsletter about news in the Biggest Little City.Subscribe to the newsletter right here. Considersupporting the Reno Gazette Journal,too.

Follow this link:
Opinion: Jackass-ocracy harassment of Sisolaks another example of how far we've fallen | McGinness - Reno Gazette Journal

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Opinion: Jackass-ocracy harassment of Sisolaks another example of how far we’ve fallen | McGinness – Reno Gazette Journal

After another Starlink mission, SpaceX on pace for one launch per week this year Spaceflight Now – Spaceflight Now

Posted: at 4:38 pm

SpaceXs Falcon 9 rocket exceeds the speed of sound Thursday, about minute after liftoff from Kennedy Space Center with 47 Starlink internet satellites. Credit: Stephen Clark / Spaceflight Now

Another batch of 47 internet satellites launched Thursday on a Falcon 9 rocket from Kennedy Space Center, heading into the sky to join SpaceXs Starlink broadband network on the companys ninth mission in nine weeks, keeping pace with a goal of around 50 Falcon flights this year.

Under a clear sky with calm winds, the Falcon 9 rocket lit its nine Merlin 1D main engines and climbed away from pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center at 9:25 a.m. EST (1425 GMT) Thursday.

Heading southeast, the engines generated more than 20 million horsepower to propel the Falcon 9 rocket through most of the Earths atmosphere in two-and-a-half minutes, before shutting down falling away to reveal the rockets second stage engine to take over the mission.

The first stage, flying on its 11th mission, used control thrusters to re-orient itself at the edge of space, then extended four titanium grid fins for stability during descent back to Earth. Braking burns by the rockets main engines guided the booster toward SpaceXs drone ship Just Read the Instructions parked downrange in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas.

SpaceX confirmed the rocket designated B1060 in SpaceXs inventory landed on the platform nearly nine minutes after liftoff, just as the second stage engine switched off after placing its satellite payloads into a parking orbit.

A second burn by the upper stage engine delivered the 47 satellites to a near circular orbit at an altitude of almost 200 miles (320 kilometers). The flat-packed, quarter-ton satellites released from the rocket all at once just shy of the 66-minute mark in the mission.

The Starlink deployment completed the 118th consecutive successful mission by SpaceXs Falcon rocket family since September 2016, when a Falcon 9 exploded on the launch pad and destroyed the Israeli Amos 6 communications satellite.

Elon Musk, SpaceXs founder CEO, said last month that the company plans around 50 launches this year. SpaceX launched Falcon 9 rockets on 31 missions in 2021, a record number for a U.S. company in a calendar year. The Falcon boosters successfully landed on all but one flight last year.

I have launch PTSD every time a rocket takes off, he said. Im like, agh! I just see all the ways that it could fail.This year were actually aiming to have around 50 launches, so its about a launch per week on average. So its a hell of a year weve got ahead of us.

Launches for the Starlink network will take the largest share of SpaceXs missions this year, but there are numerous commercial and military missions on the schedule. There are approximately 30 missions for external customers on SpaceXs schedule that could launch before the end of 2022.

Up to five Falcon Heavy missions could launch this year for the U.S. Space Force, NASA, and Viasat.

Once free of the rocket Thursday, the 47 new Starlink spacecraft built by SpaceX in Redmond, Washington were expected to extend their solar panels and turn on ion engines to begin climbing to an operational altitude of 335 miles (540 kilometers). They will also activate their communications payloads, including antennas, transmitters, receivers, and laser cross-links to pass data between the satellites in orbit.

With the fresh satellites deployed Thursday, SpaceX has launched 2,234 Starlink spacecraft to date, including prototypes and older models no longer in service. Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who regularly tracks spaceflight activity, estimated SpaceX had 1,945 functioning Starlink satellites in orbit, as of Wednesday.

SpaceX doesnt release information on the health and status of its Starlink satellites.

The launch Thursday occurred just six days after SpaceXs previous Starlink mission from California. SpaceX plans another Starlink launch on a Falcon 9 rocket March 8 from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, putting the company closer to reaching a goal of deploying roughly 4,400 Starlink satellites to beam high-speed, low-latency internet services around the world.

Eventually, SpaceX has signaled in regulatory filings it wants to operate as many as 42,000 internet satellites, all flying in low Earth orbit a few hundred miles above the planet.

The number of satellites planned by SpaceX and other companies have raised questions about the safety of operations in low Earth orbit, including how the fleets might create more space debris and cause problems in managing the ever-growing number of objects circling the planet.

Astronomers have also criticized the Starlink program for ruining some telescope observations, but SpaceX has mitigated the problem by making their satellites less reflective of sunlight.

But the upside of space-based internet services was on display in recent days after SpaceX shipped Starlink antennas to Ukraine to help citizens remain connected amid Russias military attack, which began Feb. 24.

Two days later, Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraines vice prime minister, asked Elon Musk for help on Twitter.

While you try to colonize Mars Russia try to occupy Ukraine! Fedorov tweeted in a public message to Musk. While your rockets successfully land from space Russian rockets attack Ukrainian civil people! We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane Russians to stand.

Musk responded the same day that Starlink service was activated in Ukraine. A shipment of Starlink user terminals arrived in Ukraine Monday, according to Fedorov.

Starlink keeps our cities connected and emergency services saving lives! Fedorov tweeted Wednesday, adding that Ukraine needs electrical generators to keep Starlink and other life-saving services online after Russian attacks on local infrastructure.

Email the author.

Follow Stephen Clark on Twitter: @StephenClark1.

Read the original here:

After another Starlink mission, SpaceX on pace for one launch per week this year Spaceflight Now - Spaceflight Now

Posted in Spacex | Comments Off on After another Starlink mission, SpaceX on pace for one launch per week this year Spaceflight Now – Spaceflight Now