Category Archives: Free Speech

Oakland News Now

video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the videos upper left hand corner. OaklandNewsNow.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.

Download the GB News App to watch live wherever you are, catch up with all our shows and get the latest news from the GBN

via IFTTT

Note from Zennie62Media and OaklandNewsNow.com : this video-blog post demonstrates the full and live operation of the latest updated version of an experimental Zennie62Media , Inc. mobile media video-blogging system network that was launched June 2018. This is a major part of Zennie62Media , Inc.s new and innovative approach to the production of news media. What we call The Third Wave of Media. The uploaded video is from a YouTube channel. When the YouTube video channel for GBNews News Opinion Debate uploads a video it is automatically uploaded to and formatted automatically at the Oakland News Now site and Zennie62-created and owned social media pages. The overall objective here, on top of our is smartphone-enabled, real-time, on the scene reporting of news, interviews, observations, and happenings anywhere in the World and within seconds and not hours is the use of the existing YouTube social graph on any subject in the World. Now, news is reported with a smartphone and also by promoting current content on YouTube: no heavy and expensive cameras or even a laptop are necessary, or having a camera crew to shoot what is already on YouTube. The secondary objective is faster, and very inexpensive media content news production and distribution. We have found there is a disconnect between post length and time to product and revenue generated. With this, the problem is far less, though by no means solved. Zennie62Media is constantly working to improve the system network coding and seeks interested content and media technology partners.

Oakland News Online Links From Oakland's Only News Aggregator Blog

Oakland News Now Archives Oakland News Now Archives Select Month December 2021 (35020) November 2021 (32789) October 2021 (8926) September 2021 (1111) August 2021 (843) July 2021 (725) June 2021 (431) May 2021 (393) April 2021 (463) March 2021 (320) February 2021 (315) January 2021 (356) December 2020 (319) November 2020 (349) October 2020 (444) September 2020 (445) August 2020 (496) July 2020 (462) June 2020 (391) May 2020 (301) April 2020 (289) March 2020 (239) February 2020 (221) January 2020 (262) December 2019 (161) November 2019 (183) October 2019 (226) September 2019 (173) August 2019 (231) July 2019 (239) June 2019 (194) May 2019 (137) April 2019 (224) March 2019 (164) February 2019 (142) January 2019 (181) December 2018 (147) November 2018 (168) October 2018 (173) September 2018 (192) August 2018 (183) July 2018 (176) June 2018 (125) May 2018 (28) April 2018 (18)

Read more from the original source:
Free Speech Nation: Battle of Ideas | Tuesday 28th December - Oakland News Now

Dr. Anthony Fauci is calling for Fox News host Jesse Watters to be fired over recent comments Watters made at the right-wing America Fest event in Phoenix, Arizona. Watters suggested that people confront Fauci and tell him that he funded research at the Wuhan lab and then boom, he is dead, he is dead, hes done. You do that, thirty seconds, its all you need.

Watters also used the terms ambush and kill shot when making his suggestions. Of course, Watters can just hide behind these being rhetorical devices and claim he doesnt want anyone to literally kill Anthony Fauci. But given the vitriol against the nations top infectious disease doctor from the right, and given that Fauci has received a multitude of death threats, Watters should have known better.

Fauci responded this week to the Fox hosts comments and said that he should be fired on the spot. Fauci told CNNs John Berman, what kind of craziness is there in society these days? Thats awful that he said that. And hes going to go, very likely, unaccountable. I mean whatever network hes on is not going to do anything for him. Unfortunately, Faucis prediction here is most likely going to be correct and hopefully his life is not put in even more danger over Watters comments.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Anthony Fauci Arizona CNN David Pakman Fox News Jesse Waters John Berman Phoenix Right-Wing America Fest The David Pakman Show

Read the rest here:
Fauci Wants Fox Host Fired Over "Kill Shot" Comment - Free Speech TV

Today were reflecting on what The Atlantic covered in 2021. Below youll find stories that are both cautionary and hopefuland that cover both the natural world and our digital one.

To get a single Atlantic story curated and sent to your inbox each day, sign up for our One Story to Read Today newsletter.

What Bobby McIlvaine Left Behind

McIlvaine was 26 years old when he died in the September 11 attacks. Two decades later, his loved ones are still grappling with the loss. In our September cover story, Jennifer Senior examines grief, conspiracy, and one familys search for meaning.

Why Health-Care Workers Are Quitting in Droves

About one in five health-care workers has left their job since the start of the pandemic, Ed Yong reported this fall, and a bigger exodus may be coming.

Trumps Next Coup Has Already Begun

Millions of Americans still believe the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden. For our latest cover story, Barton Gellman spoke with Big Lie supporters to understand their convictions. They are, he reports, the primary source of Donald Trumps power to corrupt the next election.

Not Enough Has Changed Since Sanford and Son

For decades, Black writers and producers have had to tell stories that fit what white executives deemed authentic. In our October cover story, Hannah Giorgis maps the slow, cyclical, and uneven progress of Black representation on television.

History Will Not Judge Us Kindly

In October, leaked internal documents revealed that Facebook has a highly sophisticated understanding of how it could make the platform safer from extremism and misinformation. The company wants people to believe that the public must choose between Facebook as it is, on the one hand, and free speech, on the other, Adrienne LaFrance wrote. This is a false choice.

The Roe Baby

Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, never had the abortion she sought. Today, the baby at the center of the case is an adult. After decades of keeping her identity a secret, Jane Roes child chose to talk with the journalist Joshua Prager about her life.

Why Confederate Lies Live On

Before the pandemic, Clint Smith set out to answer a question: Why does the myth of the Lost Cause persist? For some Americans, he wrote in our June cover story, Confederate history isnt the story of what actually happened; it is just the story they want to believe.

Return the National Parks to the Tribes

For Native Americans, there can be no better remedy for the theft of land than land, David Treuer writes in our May cover story. And for us, no lands are as spiritually significant as the national parks.

The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earths Ancient Rock Record

Many of the current climate models are missing something big, Peter Brannen writes. For our March issue, Brannen sifted through Earths deep past to understand just what kind of ill-tempered planet were dealing with.

One by One, My Friends Were Sent to the Camps

In 2017, the poet Tahir Hamut Izgil and his family escaped the Uyghur genocide in China. In an unprecedented, five-part series, he shares a rare firsthand account of the ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Thanks for reading. This email was written by Mara Wilson, whose favorite story this year was about Happy, the elephant at the center of the most important animal-rights case of the 21st century.

Visit link:
10 Atlantic Stories From 2021 That You Cant Miss - The Atlantic

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen created an international media blitz earlier this year when she leaked tens of thousands of damning internal company documents to the Wall Street Journal and US government. Her disclosures so far have prompted public outrage and government investigations and theyve directed a spotlight at an increasingly powerful movement of tech workers who have been organizing to hold their companies accountable over ethical concerns ranging from workplace issues to questionable business practices.

These employees a mix of public whistleblowers and internal activists often risk their careers and reputations to alert the public to problematic behavior at the companies they worked for. Some of them are blue-collar workers who take even greater risks to speak out because they have less financial and professional security than corporate employees. But they keep coming forward, as more disillusioned tech workers become convinced they have the unique insights that will force powerful tech giants to face public accountability for their missteps.

To understand why these workers spoke up and how that impacted their own lives and the world since they did Recode interviewed almost a dozen recent whistleblowers and employee activists in tech, from Frances Haugen to Chris Smalls, a former Amazon warehouse manager who is now helping lead a movement to unionize the companys blue-collar workers.

A few years ago, it was very rare to read about somebody inside a big tech firm speaking up publicly, both at the top and at the bottom. The tide has turned, said William Fitzgerald, a partner at communications firm The Worker Agency, which specializes in representing workers and whistleblowers in the tech industry.

As tech companies have grown from startups to empires, theres a growing concern that these giants need to be checked, better regulated, or at the very least, more closely scrutinized. And tech employees are uniquely positioned to do that. They are part of a limited group of people who have a behind-the-scenes understanding of the complicated algorithms and internal company policies that underpin so many of the apps and services most of us use every day.

Even many political regulators, whose job it is to oversee these companies, admit they lack the technical expertise to do so showing how much these whistleblowers and activists testimony matters. In a world where some of the most powerful tools of communication and commerce are controlled by a handful of corporate executives, these employees who speak up are providing an unexpected and meaningful balance to Big Techs power.

The everyday person needs to understand the extent of the harms that these companies could perpetuate, said Timnit Gebru, who used to co-lead Googles ethical AI department and recently started a research institution to study the effects of AI on marginalized groups. She says she was fired in 2020 (Google says she resigned) over a conflict related to one of her research papers. And so its the whistleblowers who do us a huge service, because then we could have regulations that address some of these issues.

The whistleblowers and activists who spoke to Recode are an important part of techs ongoing reckoning. These workers are speaking up at the possible expense of their jobs, financial stability, and even their mental health. And despite their companies efforts to crack down on this movement, whistleblowers are still coming out at major tech companies and startups alike in greater numbers than before.

Speaking out against a powerful company like Google, Facebook, or Apple isnt an easy choice.

No one wants to be a whistleblower, Haugen told Recode. It is a horrible experience from the perspective of wrestling with what to do. Having to realize that you could do something its scary.

Thats how it felt for Sophie Zhang, a former data scientist at Facebook, who spoke out and shared evidence that revealed Facebook has repeatedly failed to stop widespread political misuse of its platform.

Zhang, whose job at Facebook was to identify spammy activity on the platform, gradually became aware of a deeper issue after she started working at the company in 2017: Authoritarian governments in places like Azerbaijan and Honduras were systematically using fake Facebook pages and profiles to influence politics in those countries.

She found that a torrent of politically motivated fake accounts was slipping through the cracks and avoiding detection at Facebook. So she said she took her issue up the management chain and asked to hand over the work to a dedicated team, but says she found limited success.

I should not have been single-handedly making decisions that impacted national presidents and made international news, Zhang told Recode. After a certain point, I started losing sleep at night because of the responsibility.

In a statement to Recode in response to whistleblower claims by Zhang, Haugen, and others, Meta (formerly known as Facebook) spokesperson Kadia Koroma wrote, in part:

We value constructive feedback and expect to be held accountable, but we also think its important to set the record straight when the work of thousands of people at Meta is mischaracterized. Claims being made about our company misrepresent how much we care about these issues, how much progress weve made on them, and how much we invest to improve even further.

In response to Zhangs claims in particular, Facebook said that it has taken some action against coordinated fake accounts in Honduras and Azerbaijan.

Zhang said her managers ultimately told her to stop finding fake political accounts and focus on her main job responsibilities. After Zhang was fired around eight months later for what Facebook said was poor performance, she posted an internal memo on Facebooks employee communication platform, Workplace, detailing the problems she identified at the company. In her memo, which BuzzFeed News obtained and published excerpts of in September 2020, Zhang wrote about how conflicted she felt and why she was hesitant to blow the whistle on Facebook publicly: I consider myself to have been put in an impossible spot caught between my loyalties to the company and my loyalties to the world as a whole.

Several months after parts of her memo were published, Zhang went public with her story in the Guardian. Since then, shes found a new audience to share her story with: international lawmakers. Zhang has been invited to speak before the UK Parliament, lawmakers in India, and other governmental bodies about regulation to limit the harm of social media platforms like Facebook. Eventually, shes thinking about finding another job in tech, but for now is able to support herself with savings while she advocates for tech reform.

For Zhang, the hardest part of whistleblowing was the moral burden leading up to it.

For other whistleblowers, the hardest part of the process is what comes after they speak out.

Former Google engineer Rebecca Rivers protested the companys work with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), arguing that it wasnt in line with Googles ethical principles because of the human rights abuses associated with the immigration agency. Rivers said that her life turned upside down after she spoke out, even though she only did so internally at the time.

Google fired Rivers in 2019, saying that she made clear and repeated violations of its data-security policies. Rivers was one of five employees involved in internal organizing that Google terminated at the same time, dubbed The Fired Five.

I think that part of what caused Google to want to take this kind of action is that they were seeing larger organized groups of [workers] again and again on issues, said Laurence Berland, another member of the Five. And I think that that kind of organization, that kind of exercise of power, is what these tech companies like Google are most afraid of.

Berland, Rivers, and the other members of the Fired Five are involved in litigation against Google with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the company retaliated against them for legally protected worker organizing activity. The case could be a precedent-setting one for expanding workers rights to free speech while on the job. But its been slowed down by procedural delays that Googles lawyers initiated around releasing certain documents, which could take months or longer a process Rivers called mentally exhausting.

There is a common criticism that people who blow the whistle in tech are doing it for attention or fame. But the former employees Recode spoke with scoffed at the notion, relaying their own experiences of personal suffering and the relatively comfortable lives they led before they spoke out.

Its frankly not good for you as an individual to be a whistleblower, Berland told Recode. If youre lucky, the worst youll go through is some stress and some expense, but you can end up really burned out. You can end up blackballed.

Rivers said in the months following her termination from Google, she struggled with her mental health. She had recently come out as trans and had to dip into her 401(k) savings to make ends meet as she struggled to find a new job. The pressure was so great that, at times, she was suicidal.

Every application I sent would be an immediate rejection. Not even a phone call from HR, said Rivers.

Eventually, Rivers found a fit: In August of last year, she was hired at an internet-focused research group, the NYU Ad Observatory, where another member of the Fired Five, Paul Duke, is also working.

Since Rivers and her colleagues were fired, there has been an uptick in whistleblowing and activism at other tech companies like Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. At some of these firms particularly within the notoriously secretive, heads-down work culture at Apple that level of organizing was previously unthinkable.

Rivers said thats why, even with all the hell that shes been through, she would speak out at Google again if given the chance.

I see the impact that Ive had, not only at Google but in the tech industry as a whole and in the labor movement as a whole, she said.

Even a few years ago, it was a lonelier world for would-be tech whistleblowers.

But as more whistleblowers and activists have come forward, theyve begun building a community that can offer support to conflicted employees.

Ifeoma Ozoma, a former Pinterest public policy manager who accused the company of racial discrimination in 2020, said that, once she went public with her claims, she felt alienated from some of the colleagues who had been privately sympathetic to her case.

They were afraid that they would be next if they said anything, Ozoma told Recode. Theres a lot of isolation that takes place.

When Ozoma was considering how to speak out about Pinterest, she said she researched the work of tech activists before her, like Meredith Whittaker and Claire Stapleton, who were two of a handful of organizers of the Google Walkout, a historic protest against the companys handling of sexual harassment.

Now, Ozoma is a key leader for a growing community of tech employees.

In October, she released an online resource called the Tech Worker Handbook, which provides advice for would-be tech whistleblowers and activists. In recent months, shes been supporting Apple employees by helping file a shareholder proposal asking the company to reassess using nondisclosure agreements to prevent employees from speaking out about harassment and discrimination at work.

Other activists are focusing on relief funds for employees who risk their financial stability to speak out.

Liz Fong-Jones, a former Google engineer and tech activist, set up the Coworker Solidarity Fund in partnership with the nonprofit Coworker.org for tech worker whistleblowers and organizers. Fong-Jones put $100,000 of her personal finances from her stock in Google toward seeding the project. She said so far, the fund has distributed $180,000 in grants to 64 people, including those who suddenly need[ed] to scramble to have COBRA [health insurance] or suddenly need to cover their rent especially people who were working lower-wage jobs.

Googles Gebru said that when she spoke out, she was heartened by how many tech workers supported her on social media.

There was an infrastructure built to organize. It was good to see how that played out in my situation, she told Recode. That groundwork galvanized a lot of people.

Even at Apple, a notoriously secretive company where internal issues are rarely discussed publicly, some of its workers have started speaking out about alleged discrimination, harassment, and workplace issues. Former Apple engineer and tech activist Cher Scarlett is one of the creators of an employee activist group called #AppleToo, which changed its name to Apple Together earlier this month. On the groups public Medium page, employees have published anonymous stories about mistreatment in the workplace.

In a statement to Recode, a spokesperson for Apple responded to growing concerns by employees such as Scarlett:

We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters.

Although Scarlett no longer works at Apple, and will be starting a new job at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, her former colleagues continue to be in touch with her about organizing in the Apple Together group.

I think that as humans, we copy each other; were inspired by each other, Scarlett told Recode. As more people in tech feel comfortable to organize or stand up for themselves in terms of ethics or workplace issues more people will feel safe and empowered to do so.

So while most would-be tech whistleblowers may have to take big risks, they now have examples to follow and networks to tap into. Many of these grassroots support systems didnt exist even a few years ago.

All this activism and whistleblowing has inarguably shined a glaring light on the problems in the tech industry.

Haugen not only gave the Senate evidence about Facebooks missteps, but she also offered a blueprint on how to regulate the company. And when Congress released its historic report accusing companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon of engaging in anti-competitive behavior, it relied in part on confidential whistleblower testimony.

But whether or not these disclosures actually lead to meaningful change depends on what the public does with that information. After Haugens revelations, Facebook executives have faced several fiery hearings before Congress, and new legislation to regulate social media has been proposed. But so far, none has passed or is even close to passing. Google has dropped controversial projects in the face of employee whistleblowing like its plans to work with the Pentagon on military AI and to develop a censored version of its product in China but in 2021, it tried to restart work again with the military.

Whistleblowers are really important. But whistleblowing itself is not all of the work. Its not the full work, said Ozoma. Theres the speaking up and then theres following it up [and] doing the work after.

Ozoma led a successful effort to pass a bill in California called the Silenced No More Act, which legally protects workers across industries who speak out about discrimination at their place of employment. But it wasnt easy. Ozoma said she spent months sitting on Zoom with legislators to explain to them why the law needed to change, in addition to fundraising for a professional lobbyist to help pass the legislation.

Other whistleblowers are putting their efforts toward forming unions, which they see as a more sustainable approach to giving workers a voice within powerful corporations.

Chris Smalls is a former Amazon warehouse manager who was fired in March 2020 after criticizing the company for how it was treating its workers during the start of the pandemic. Amazon says Smalls was terminated for allegedly violating social distancing guidelines and returning to work after a Covid-19 exposure (Smalls previously said he never went inside the building, only in the parking lot). Today, Smalls says he spends his days outside Amazons Staten Island warehouses trying to get his former colleagues to unionize.

We realize now that were not going to get taken care of by billionaires, were not going to get taken care of by CEOs, [and] to some degree, were not going to be taken care of by politicians, Smalls told Recode. So its up to the workers. Its up to the activists to continue to organize.

In the meantime, companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple have all cracked down on their internal communication tools in different ways, limiting the ability of workers to organize across different divisions and on politically loaded subjects. These tech companies also regularly investigate the communications of employees who are suspected of leaking information to the press. And while there are some legal protections in the US for whistleblowers who disclose their findings directly to government agencies like the SEC, or employees who speak publicly about workplace issues and union organizing, those protections are limited.

In this country and in democratic nations around the world, we need much more robust and comprehensive whistleblower protections if we actually want to give our oversight authorities the ability to do their jobs, said Libby Liu, the CEO of the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, which helps workers across industries who go public with company information, including Frances Haugen.

But despite all the legal risk, public firings, social ostracism, and the financial instability of a pandemic, tech workers are continuing to blow the whistle with more frequency than before.

Nearly every activist and whistleblower Recode interviewed said they were talking to several others in the industry who are considering speaking out about issues like workplace harassment and discrimination, or the harms of the products their companies are building.

When Chanin Kelly-Rae, a former global manager of diversity for a division of Amazon Web Services, first spoke to Recode about racial bias issues she identified inside the company, she was the only employee to speak on the record. Now, several others have come forward publicly, and Kelly-Rae says she is in touch with more who are considering speaking out.

People saw that I could be named and that the world would not fall apart, Kelly-Rae told Recode. I could have kept quiet and made a lot of money. I could have checked some boxes that werent real. But that didnt serve my purpose.

Ultimately, despite the often negative personal consequences, tech whistleblowers keep speaking out.

I dont think you can ever stop this sort of stuff, said Berland. Short of [having] everything done by robots.

See the article here:
Facebook, Google, Apple, and others face a growing whistleblower movement - Vox.com

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

This is a call to action for all Americans to rise and defend Free Speech and the First Amendment:

America's tradition of civil discourse has been trodden down by government overreach that implements policies like face masks and social distancing. Consider the damage:

The first step in getting started is to put yourself on record. Not everyone volunteers, but some will. Not everyone donates, but some can. Not everyone can reach thousands, but everyone can reach someone. We need each other because only together can we do great things. There is no time to wait, so please join us today!

If you check the Volunteer box below, we will encourage you to attend our signature training to fine-tune your communication skills. Based on Mary Baker's book, Citizen Ninja: Stand up to Power, our highly-successful training teaches you the basic principles of civil discourse needed to be a successful local activist and persuasive communicator in your own community.

This is easier than you think, but only you can throw the switch inside your own head and heart. It doesn't matter how much you compromised or failed in the past. It doesn't matter if you are strong or weak, educated or uneducated, talented or not talented or just lack confidence. Our training program will give you the strength, knowledge and confidence that you need to exercise your First Amendment freedoms. Our Volunteer program will give you tools, materials and strategies on how to effectively communicate in your own community.

CFFS is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.

CountryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, the Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraaoCyprusCzech RepublicCte d'IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorth Macedonia, Republic ofNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRunionSaint BarthlemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweland Islands

Visit link:
Citizens for Free Speech

"It's not a matter of if..." warns epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding when asked if the Omicron variant of Covid-19 will bury the already over full hospitals. "We haven't even seen the worst of this." The Omicron Variant is here, and it is spreading fast.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the latest news of the Omicron variant, how the omicron wave will affect the United States, future COVID lockdowns and the need to get tested every single day.

Dr. Feigl-Ding is an Epidemiologist & Senior Fellow-Federation of American Scientists, former faculty member & researcher-Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Coronavirus COVID-19 Eric Feigl-Ding Omicron The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Vaccine

See more here:
Will Omicron Overwhelm the US? - Free Speech TV

In 1993 and 1994, talk-radio hosts in Rwanda calling for bloodshed helped create the atmosphere that led to genocide. The Clinton administration could have jammed the radio signals and taken those broadcasts off the air, but Pentagon lawyers decided against it, citing free speech. Its true that the propagandists speech would have been curtailed. Its also possible that a genocide would have been averted.

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What Im arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly. Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence. Social media companies have shown how quickly they can act when under pressure. After every high-profile eruption of violence Charlottesville, Christchurch and the like tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently barred from all major platforms.

We need to protect the rights of speakers, John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, but what about protecting everyone else? Mr. Powell was the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he represented the Ku Klux Klan in federal court. Racists should have rights, he explained. I also know, being black and having black relatives, what it means to have a cross burned on your lawn. It makes no sense for the law to be concerned about one and ignore the other.

Mr. Powell, in other words, is a free-speech advocate but not a free-speech absolutist. Shortly before his tenure as legal director, he said, when women complained about sexual harassment in the workplace, the A.C.L.U.s response would be, Sorry, nothing we can do. Harassment is speech. That looks ridiculous to us now, as it should. He thinks that some aspects of our current First Amendment jurisprudence blanket protections of hate speech, for example will also seem ridiculous in retrospect. Its simpler to think only about the First Amendment and to ignore, say, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees full citizenship and equal protection to all Americans, including those who are harmed by hate speech, he said. Its simpler, but its also wrong.

Read more:
Opinion | Free Speech Is Killing Us - The New York Times

Free speech What is freedom of speech, and what does it protect?

Freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. The term speech constitutes expression that includes far more than just words, but also what a person wears, reads, performs, protests and more. In the United States, freedom of speech is strongly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as many state and federal laws. The United States free speech protections are among the strongest of any democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that many would see as offensive, hateful or harassing.

The Constitution prohibits UC Berkeley, as a public institution, from banning or punishing speech based on its content or viewpoint. Because campus policy permits Registered Student Organizations to invite speakers to campus and provides access to campus venues for that purpose, the university cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Doing so would violate the First Amendment rights of the student group. Only under extraordinary circumstances, described below in the Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment? section, can an event featuring a speaker invited this way be cancelled. Secondly, once a speaker has been invited by a student group, the campus is obligated and committed to acting reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

The Supreme Court has said that public entities like UC Berkeley have discretion in regulating the time, place, and manner of speech. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The campus can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety. When it comes to controversial speakers, UC Berkeley invokes this necessary authority in order to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chance that an event will proceed successfully and that the campus community will not be made unsafe. The campus heeds its police departments assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events. The campus might invoke its time, place and manner discretion, for example, to ensure that an event with a highly controversial speaker would be held in a venue that the campus police force believes to be protectable (e.g. one with an ample number of exits, with the ability to be cordoned off, without floor to ceiling glass, etc.). The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason that we require students to work with the administration when setting up their events, as opposed to scheduling and creating the events on their own without campus input.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech by default, placing the burden on the state to demonstrate whether there are any circumstances that justify its limitation. When it comes to controversial speakers delivering remarks on campus, the relevant exceptions to the First Amendment that have been established are:

The term hate speech does not have a legal definition in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender. While the university condemns speech of this kind, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment and it is only illegal if it falls into one of the categories described above. In fact, on many occasions, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that prohibitions or punishments for hateful speech violate the First Amendment. Just because there is a First Amendment right to say something, however, doesnt mean that it should be said. The First Amendment protects a right to say hateful things, but as a campus we strive to be a community where no one will choose to express hate.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a public institution like UC Berkeley cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs is called a prior restraint, and prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed. While the campus is constitutionally required and committed to doing what it can to protect speakers and to prevent disruption or violence, if despite all efforts by the campus there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, a speakers event can be cancelled. This is a last resort, and never done based on the views of the speaker. The campuss paramount need is to protect the safety of its students, staff and faculty.

Absolutely. Berkeley supports the notion of a marketplace of ideas, in which speech that a person disagrees with should be met with more speech that engages and debates it. The First Amendment and the university are founded on the premise that we are all better off if ideas can be expressed and responded to, rather than be subject to an imposed orthodoxy of belief and punished for deviating from it. Free speech is particularly important to a university like Berkeley whose goal is the discovery and establishment of truth. Many ideas now fundamental to our understanding of the universe and our place in it such as evolution or climate change were initially attacked. Freedom of speech is so important to the university that one of the universitys bedrock principles is academic freedom, which protects faculty in their research and teaching, as well as the speech of students.

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) refers to a period in 1964 when UC Berkeley students successfully fought against an administrative ban on on-campus political activities. The FSM sparked a wave of student activism that became a core part of the campuss identity through the Vietnam War and far beyond. One of the lessons of the FSM for Berkeley and across the country was that academic freedom means that student speech also is essential and protected. Learn more about the movement at fsm.berkeley.edu.

When there is a threat of violence in our community, the Berkeley administration works closely with student affairs staff, UCPD, the City of Berkeley and/or other groups to develop and communicate safety plans to the campus. Generally, we advise that if students see violence occurring, they should separate themselves from it, report what they see to police and follow police instructions. When events are occurring that have the potential to endanger students, UCPD uses the text and email messaging service Nixle to keep the campus informed about developments in real time. Additionally, Berkeley offers many resources, including counseling services, for students who have been affected physically, mentally or emotionally by such events. Visit deanofstudents.berkeley.edu/well-being for more information.

No stand down order has ever been issued by UCPD, or ever will be. Tactical response decisions are made by UCPD command on the scene of an event or incident, based on our prioritization of student and public safety. At times, this requires a difficult but appropriate real-time assessment that efforts to effect arrests would likely lead to numerous serious injuries, or worse, among innocent bystanders. For more information on the guidelines and values that govern policing on the UC campuses, see the 2012 Robinson-Edley report.

The Constitution, and its protection of rights, applies only to the government. Public universities are directly bound by the First Amendment to uphold the right to free speech. Because private schools are not state actors, those schools administrations may generally impose whatever restrictions they wish on speech or on visitors to campus. Additional laws may also guide their actions, however; in California, for example, a state statute says that private universities cannot punish speech that the First Amendment prevents from being punished in public universities.

Several public universities have recently denied requests from white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak on their campuses, citing the violence in Charlottesville as cause to invoke prior restraint in the name of public safety. We are not aware of any public university that has cancelled an already scheduled appearance, or an invitation issued by a legally independent student group. It should also be noted that in previous attempts to block Spencer from speaking on campuses, he has sued those campuses and won. Lawsuits have already been filed against some of the public universities that recently denied Spencers requests. Cancelling events must be a last resort to be used only when the campus, despite taking all reasonable steps, believes that it cannot protect the safety of its students, staff and faculty. Events can never legally be canceled based on the likely offensiveness of the speakers message.

If UC Berkeley were to illegally cancel the talk of a speaker invited by a student group, it could be sued by the speaker or by the student group. A court could issue an order requiring the campus to allow the speaker. The court could also potentially award money damages to the speaker and student group, and the campus, if it loses such a lawsuit, would also be liable for paying the attorney fees of the speaker and student group. There are many instances, including in California, where public universities have been sued in exactly this way when they have tried to exclude speakers.

The current event policy, which underwent changes in the summer of 2017, can be found on the dean of students website. The policy is designed to be consistent with the universitys paired commitments to free speech as well as to the safety and well-being of students, other members of the campus community, their guests and the public. These key elements of the previous policy have been retained:

At the same time, the new, interim policy proposes changes and additions that include:

The university does not charge student groups different fees to host speakers based on the invited speaker or the content of his or her speech. Doing so would constitute a breach of students First Amendment rights. As is the case with all events that student groups host, those groups must reimburse the campus for the cost of basic event security. These security charges are calculated based on neutral, objective criteria having nothing to do with the speakers perspectives, prior conduct on other campuses and/or expected protests by those who stand in opposition to him or her.

Yes activism is very much part of our campus DNA, and we encourage expression in protest of other expression. The campus encourages all who engage in protest activity to do so safely. Below are some reminders for how to protest safely:

As discussed above in the section What are time, place and manner restrictions? How do they relate to controversial speakers?, the Supreme Court has said that public entities like UC Berkeley have discretion in regulating the time, place and manner of speech. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. These restrictions do not vary depending on the views or ideas being expressed; rather they are about ensuring that speech occurs in a way that does not disrupt the campuss educational mission or endanger public safety. The university has developed rules and regulations related to protest that are designed to prevent substantial disruption of educational activities, protect lawful access to campus programs and facilities, avoid unsafe behavior and prevent the destruction of property. Their application does not vary according to the cause or content of a particular protest, speech, or other form of expression, and the rules and regulations are designed to enable extensive opportunity for expressive activity. Learn more about these regulations on the UCPD website.

Any member of the UC Berkeley campus community (student, staff, or faculty) may submit an event for listing in the UC Berkeley Calendar Network. Events must take place at UC Berkeley, or be sponsored by a department or recognized group at UC Berkeley.

See more here:
Frequently asked questions Free Speech

Abdulai Mansaray: Serra Leone Telegraph: 19 December 2021:

The Sierra Leone Criminal Libel Law was introduced by Sir Albert Margai of the SLPP in 1965. Undoubtedly, it became one of the most draconian sledgehammers used to muzzle and zip up opposition parties and dissenting media voices.

The APC party vociferously opposed the law then, but the late Siaka Stevens perfected the dark art on assuming power in 1968. It became his sharpest tool of choice, in the arsenal of his One -Party rule. Despite numerous promises to repeal this law in election manifestoes, successive governments continued to wield this sword of Damocles as antidote to democracy.

The fact that it took 55 years and an SLPP President Bio to repeal this anti-democratic law is not only ironic but self-owned. Freedom of speech is the palm oil with which democracy is eaten and repealing the criminal libel law was a milestone in our history.

President Bio deserves all the plaudits he can get. But does the recent spate of arrests, questionings and detentions put his legacy at risk? isnt it ironic that President Bio, who championed the repeal of the Criminal Libel Law is presiding over a period that has seen political opponents frogmarched to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), for voicing their objections to some of his policies?

Does this this give credence to the notion that freedom of speech is no guarantee for freedom after speech?

Media reports stated that Ms Diana F Konomanyi, the Eastern Regional Chairman of the APC and Ms Femi C. Cole, chairman of the Unity Party were arrested and detained (the Sierraleonetelegraph.com-13/12/21). While Dr Dennis Bright of NGC was a guest at the Police HQ on 7/12/21 for speaking out against the controversial mid term census, Ms Konomanyi was roped in for an alleged video she released; calling on her Kono kindred to boycott the controversial midterm census.

Ms Cole endured a similar fate for similar claims, while chaperoning her colleague to the CID. Other political personalities are rumoured to have had similar experiences. Does it look like freedom of speech is under attack from supposedly, the High Priest of freedom of speech?

So, what is free speech or freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech can come in different shades, depending on individual perceptions. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Human Rights Law, the United Nations recognised Freedom of Expression as a Human Right; a principle that supports an individual or community to articulate their opinions and views without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction (Student Companion). To others, it is the right to tell others what they dont want to hear. By arresting or detaining Ms Diana, Ms Cole, Dr Bright and others for expressing their views, did Bios administration breach their human rights? If so, is President Bio giving with one hand and taking with the other?

But lets remember that every right has responsibilities. We measure our rights against the inherent responsibilities that come with such rights. One has the right to remain stupid, just as others the right to rebel against that stupidity.

Sierra Leoneans have the right to vote, and that right comes with civic and moral responsibilities. Responsibility is the price we must pay in exchange for freedoms. Does the right to freedom of speech give anyone the right to falsely shout FIRE in a crowded cinema hall?

President Bios reign is painted in accusations, ranging from tribalism, nepotism, corruption etc predominantly by the opposition. President Bios SLPP supporters and sympathisers alike, accuse the opposition APC of trying to make the country ungovernable. APC members/supporters have at various times, allegedly encouraged their following to engage in civil disobedience; in protest to some of Bios policies.

Members of both parties have resorted to trading insults (mammy Cuss) in musical lyrics and on the social media Stock Exchange. With neither party showing any appetite to discourage or condemn such abhorrent acts is suggestive of how low and kindergarten our politics has become. Silence can mean consent.

Like others, it is Ms Dianas inalienable right to oppose the mid-term census. But does that include asking a whole district to boycott a national exercise, irrespective of the inherent controversies? Many accuse her of vigilante politics and question why she didnt do the same when Ernest created Kerana and Falaba Districts prior to the 2016 midterm census?

The SLPP won the Presidential elections, not the parliamentary elections. And that is not lost on the SLPP. Dig it? There are reports that some enumerators were chased with machetes in some parts of the country; just for asking someone their names and dates of birth. If true, this shows the potential dangers of lacing our views, rights or whatever with rocket fuel.

It is understandable for Bios administration to consider Ms Dianas behaviour as an act of sabotage. Who would you blame if there were loss of lives? Would that have been worth it? The fact is, should the APC throw the baby out of the pram, each time it faces a political gridlock from the SLPP?

This is not justification for President Bios selective hearing impairment to opposition concerns either. But there are better ways of getting under, over and around our political differences. Using the ever suffering and gullible electorate as pawns on their political chessboard is not only callous but selfish.

This is the kind of behaviour that has left many wondering whether our political landscape needs adult supervision. We can express our political differences without the need for mammy cuss as the main currency. The First Lady Fatima Bio was forced to publicly express her pain at being the subject of virulent Mammy Cuss during the victory lap of the newly elected SLPP Womens Leader Hawa Foray.

President Bio reprimanded Fatima for washing the dirty linen in public. Perhaps she did so because Ngor Bio has not been listening to her pillow talk. By virtue of her character, her position or role, she has been controversial. But irrespective of her controversies, Fatima Bio, like anyone else does not deserve such levels abuse. She is a woman for Gods sake. Like or loathe her, you have the ballot box to make your feelings known, if you choose to.

Is President Bio at risk of destroying his well-earned legacy of repealing the criminal libel law?

No one is questioning the APCs right to cast doubts or question the midterm census, for fear of political gymnastics. It takes one to know one and cunning die. But that shouldnt be a carte blanche to promote, incite and support unrests in the country; all in the guise of free speech.

We shouldnt demand freedom of speech as compensation for our freedom of thought, which we seldom use. Equally, this does not give the Bio administration the right to arbitrarily arrest those who share views or opinions it doesnt like. Such actions might put Bios legacy with Criminal Libel Law at risk of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

No one doubts the frustration, the sense of injustice, the threats and fear of persecution that comes with being in the opposition. No one questions the perceived injustices, discriminations, and unfair advantages that come with being in the opposition. But does that mean that we should continue to use the electorate, who by the way bear the brunt of the ineptitude of our politicians, as pawns of their political chessboard?

There is no doubt that freedom of speech is a difficult balancing act with very thin lines between democracy and tyranny. It can be difficult to soar with eagles when you fly with crows. But it can be done. with a common sense of purpose.

Our two main parties never cease to tell us how bad and unfit the other is at governing. Ironically, not only do they use each other as standards or yardsticks to demonstrate their differences, but also as litmus test to measure their individual fitness to govern. How do you gauge your success against a failing or failed opponent as standard? Try Singapore or Rwanda to measure your success.

In the meantime, the APC could do with officially naming their flagbearer; except if they want to risk another round of you sabi am?. Indecision can lose opportunities; and dreams can be destroyed during moments of indecision. Sometimes the key to success is doing what should be done, even if you dont feel like doing it.

Our lives begin to end the day we remain silent about the things that matter (MLK)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Dont forget to turn the lights out when you leave the room.

Like Loading...

Related

See the rest here:
The paradox of free speech and the libel criminal Law - Sierra Leone Telegraph

In the recent case of Forstater vs CGD, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) held that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. What does this mean for employers?

GCD decided not to renew Ms Forstaters fixed-term contract following complaints by colleagues about her comments on social media regarding proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. These proposals (since dropped) would have allowed men to self-identify as women and vice versa. Ms Forstater said the decision not to renew her contract was discrimination on the basis of her gender critical beliefs: namely that biological sex is real, cannot change, and is not the same as gender identity. She claimed under the Equality Act 2010, which protects religious and certain other philosophical beliefs.

Ms Forstater initially lost in the employment tribunal. However, the EAT overturned that decision. Her appeal was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the free speech body Index on Censorship.

What is the difference between sex and gender identity in the workplace?

Under the Equality Act, the relevant protected characteristics are sex and gender reassignment. Gender reassignment applies to someone proposing to undergo, undergoing or who has undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. They do not need to undergo surgery or other treatment, and many do not.

Employers must not confuse sex with gender identity or gender reassignment. A persons legal sex does not change unless they have a gender recognition certificate (and even then not for all purposes).

The EAT noted the importance of free speech and diversity of thought and said that beliefs should be protected unless aimed at the destruction of others rights and freedoms for example, Nazi beliefs. It said that Ms Forstaters beliefs were not close to that threshold. On the contrary, it recognised her views are widely held, consistent with current law on sex and gender, and dont inherently damage the rights of trans people.

The EAT recognised that Ms Forstaters views may upset or offend some people, but said that does not make them unlawful. These comments are important for those with gender critical beliefs and more generally for future cases on a range of philosophical beliefs.

Employees with gender critical beliefs are protected from discrimination and harassment in the same way as those with religious or other protected philosophical beliefs, and other protected characteristics such as sex, race and gender reassignment.

The employment tribunal will now consider whether the non-renewal of Ms Forstaters contract was because of her belief or whether it was because of the way in which she manifested that belief and if so, whether it was discrimination. In practice, this is always highly case-specific.

The key points for employers are:

Employers should also note that in collecting diversity data the relevant question should be about sex, not gender, with the options of female, male and prefer not to say. An optional question on gender identity may be added but must not replace that on sex.

Rebecca Bull is a solicitor in private practice, and a director of Sex Matters

Link:
Sex, gender and freedom of speech in the workplace - Building