Free Speech Indeed?

Greetings again, dear readers.  What a horrible heartbreak the situation in Charlottesville was - the bigotry of white supremacy so in-your-face and the loss of the life of Heather Heyer, who stood against hate. Surely we must all condemn the hatred and violence; then we must, as a society, come together to transform it into the America we know it can be.  And our leaders should do better. No, 45, we know on which side the hatred and violence were on; and ah, the news cycle these days: first your "too little too, late statement", then a racist tweet, followed by a defense of neo-nazis.

But there are other issues I wish to write about here, thinking aloud digitally, in a sense. This post was prompted by an article from Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept: "The Misguided Attacks on ACLU for Defending Neo-Nazis' Free Speech Rights in Charlottesville."

Greenwald's main thesis is that the ACLU (and full disclosure, I did renew my membership, finally, after the election) must defend all free speech rights, especially unpopular speech, where he says "free speech battles are always and by definition fought." I thought the best section of the article was his discussion of the ACLU actually defending the idea of legal precedent.  He notes that if you genuinely care about the speech of those often marginalized, should be "genuinely afraid of allowing anti-free speech precedents to become entrenched that will then be used against you when it’s time to defend free speech rights." Greenwald also uses a similar arguments concerning why the ACLU should defend these awful folks - basically, allow censorship or state control of speech in cases you don't like might erode the defense of cases you like.  Very reasonable, I think, but still I feel the discussion is just a bit incomplete.

What Gets Defended

Now let's make no mistake, I am a very strong supporter of Freedom of Speech, but I am very troubled by the type of hate speech now and the groups which are doing it. The vile rhetoric of these white supremacists is bad enough and  is no doubt hate speech. but as can be noted from the commondreams.org link above, these haters are often armed, which causes many of us much concern.  They have been know to go to great lengths to troll critics online, even finding out where they live and harassing them there. Their rhetoric sometimes also blatantly espouses or hints at violence.

Now there have long been debates about hate speech vs. protected speech. Ostensibly, even hate speech is protected (see Street vs. New York, 1969 - the flag burning case, and Matal vs. Tam, 2017) A key source of legal guidance is also the decision Brandenburg vs. Ohio.  The finding by our SCOTUS in was: "it was held that the constitutional guaranties of free speech and free press did not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action" Again, the possible harm related to such speech must be imminent.

What I find slightly problematic with that precept is we are now in the age of instant digital communications and social media.  "Speech" in one place or time is so quickly spread across hours and miles.  And as we saw in the Portland attack, which saw two rescuers killed, harm may not come during or near a rally.  Cornell William Brooks, former NAACP President, when discussing the aftermath of the Charlottesville tragedy observed that our notorious 45 should stop "signaling and engaging in messaging, racial dog whistles with the Alt-right. The fact of the matter is the whistles he blew during the campaign were answered in Charlottesville, and someone lost her life."  (see this article) 

I'm not sure I have a ready answer, but I do feel we need to consider the ramifications of this new age in the way we answer the question of what speech is protected, and how we handle the issues associated with Free Speech.  Maybe we should require venues to post warning signs or make announcements such as: "Speakers at this event may hint at or advocate acts that are illegal.  Do not engage in them later." I'm not sure whether such warnings would have any effect (do graphic cigarette warning labels have an effect? - some research says 'maybe'), but you can't say I'm not doing some "out-of-the-box thinking" here!  There was also a report that Facebook will begin deleting 'threats of physical harm."  Such initiatives might actually help the cause. (BONUS if you've made it this far: here's an op-ed about the aftermath of Charlottesville and why Brandenburg vs. Ohio may be of quite some import!)

Is There a Shred of Hope?

Greetings.  I'm not sure exactly what to say, but I'm just too emotional and heartsick not to write something.

I want to scream at people - look at the harm that's being done!  I just cannot see how ANYONE of ANY sort of good will could be party to the mess that we're in.  And it's a huge one - that even a certain nutjob's supporters should have seen coming. Our very democracy is under severe attack, there are missile strikes, civil liberties continue to be attacked, and we haven't even touched on climate concerns yet.

I was half expecting bad news about the nefarious SCOTUS nominee - and yes, it was bad. Commondreams.org listed the 4 Dem. Senate collaborators in voting for cloture, and I posted a link to that article in my twitter feed.  The GOP keeps showing us that they have no thought or care for anything but their own power.  Is there any line they won't cross?

But I was NOT prepared for the horrible news of the missile strikes on Syria.  This is wading in to very deep, dangerous territory ---- and it ignores our Constitution and international law. Trevor Timm in his twitter feed  (he's @trevortimm ) tweeted a video where Brian Williams called these strikes "beautiful" numerous times.  I'm sorry, but destruction and loss of life are certainly not MY idea of beauty.  Timm also has several tweets which show the msm for the most part has failed to be even a bit critical and just be submissive in reporting this.  Sounds a lot like Orwell, doesn't it: "War is Peace."  My mind and spirit are so troubled by this development and I can't help but also wonderalong with Peter Van Buren (see his tweet  in the commondreams article in link above) "No one knows where this ends."

That's certainly bad enough.  And there's more.  The  gov't wants to unmask an anonymous "rogue" twitter account user who has been critical of the admin..  And get this, according to an ACLU spokesperson, "on the face of the summons the government has offered no reason for seeking this information."  As a new twitter user, of course I'm concerned; and everyone else should be as well.  Free Speech needs to apply to ALL!  I'm glad that twitter is filing suit and that the ACLU is defending the user.

I know there's quite a resistance around, but is there hope for getting us out of this mess?  The stakes are too high and I'm concerned as I've never been.  The dangers are real, folks.  I'm not sure about answers, but I AM doing a LOT of praying.

And do remember, if you find this post or any post here of value, please do comment (they're GOLD, remember) and/or share.  Thanks!

Three More Alerts!

Greetings once again.  I just HAD to post about these three items which, if you haven't seen, should be checking out.

News goes so fast, it can be hard to keep up. But some things we really shouldn't miss.  There are so many fronts now needing our attention, it can be hard to know how to focus.  Still many things are interconnected if one really looks behind the scenes.  Issues of bigotry, privacy, economic injustice, climate activism have many points of intersection.

So, here are three items you might want to check out.

• This one was too good not to make note of.  GOP Senators silenced Sen. Warren from reading Coretta Scott King's letter concerning Sen. Sessions.  Although she didn't read it on the Senate floor, she did an interview about it and also read it on facebook live (if I have that correct) to so many more people.  Later, Sen . Merkley did read it on the Senate floor.  You can read about this and read the text of the letter in this article.

• The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has said it plans to grant final easement for DAPL.  This is deplorable and the water protectors are vowing resistance.

• A legal defense fund set up for Barrett Brown is suing the Dep't of Justice, claiming they were suveilling anonymous donors.  This is a very important issue, as this relates to people exercising Free Speech by anonymous donations to a cause.  First Amendment, anyone?

I hope these alerts are of service to you readers.  If you have any to share, do comment!

Also remember, if you find this post or any post here to be of value, please comment and/or share.  Thanks!

A Little Thing Called "The First Amendment" - Updated!

Do you know what week it will be from 10/17 - 10/23?  Hint - the title of this post might give a clue...
It's Free Speech Week.  All are encouraged to celebrate Free Speech in any number of ways. So Speak out!

I found out about FSW while researching this post - about a little something we call the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  Do you know what your rights are?  Do you know there are threats to them?  We need to be aware of such challenges and stand together against them and for their continued exercise.

  To begin: a short reminder of the contents of this important text:

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.

Let's consider some recent developments regarding these Freedoms as well as some good resources.

One nice resource is the site of the Bill of Rights Institute.  They have plenty of resources and a great one is blurbs of critical Supreme Court Decisions for various Bill of Rights Issues.  However I find their site a bit hard to navigate.  And I didn't see any landmark Supreme Court cases for freedom of Religion.  However, here's a link to the Freedom of Speech, General section.  Good luck navigating!

Freedom of Religion  This is listed first.  It has been much in the news recently as concerns over Islamophobia have continued.  There are reports of armed groups opposing mosques.  That's just a very recent example.  Many news reports suggest Islamophobia is on the rise - both in the U. S. and elsewhere.  Mother Jones has an article speaking to the effect this is having on young students.

Let's remember that the fight for Religious Freedom isn't new.  Jefferson fought for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.    We should all listen to the words of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama: “All major religious traditions carry the same message: a message of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline — all religious traditions,” he continued. 

Then let's stand together in ways small and large to support Religious Freedom.  Not too long ago I met a nice lady and she and another nice gal and I were chatting (I guess I must have been in a troublemaking mood as I mentioned I quit a mailing list because of the continuing Islamophobic posts. Her reaction was  ---- well they want to kill us.  I told her that some (like the Isis militants might, but not all Muslims were like that.  From the expression on her face when I said that it seemed to be a thought she hadn't considered.  Maybe, just maybe it opened her mind even a tiny bit.

Freedom of Speech  This is next on the list. Certainly one challenge we've noted is the reaction of some to protests started by Colin Kaerpernick to kneel, sit, stand, raise a fist, or otherwise during our National Anthem to protest the treatment of African-Americans.  Some of the comments go on about this being sooooo disrespectful, so un-American,  Participants have been punished or threatened.  Do these folks even stop to think that we were founded on protest and we are supposed to be about something called FREEDOM - including freedom of speech and expression?  Here's an interesting article from common dreams about the spread of protests.  Kudos to Mr. Sherman and the DeSoto, TX School Board for supporting the students' right to protest.   From the statement at the article:  "As an institution of learning, we are charged with preparing our students to become problems solvers and productive citizens; not to stifle their innovation or rejection of complacency. None of us have the right to infringe on the rights extended to our young people as American citizens."  Unfortunately, such support isn't universal.  

An interesting aspect of Freedom of Speech is a trend for online news outlets to stop having their own online comments but go to only social media comments.  I ran across this blog post from the National Coalition Against Censorship about NPR website doing exactly that (disclosure: - I used NPR News site as my home page for a while, but never registered to comment).   The major point made is that these platforms don't have the same legal obligations to the First Amendment and may also have content limitations.  And, I might add, what about those of us who refuse to go on facebook?

Big Chill? - Updated Again!

Greetings...

Anyone there - human that is?  Found out that pageviews may not always be real pageviews but something called "referral spam."  So it would be wonderful if an actual human reader would leave a comment.  C'mon - we real people should stick together!

UPDATE: 

Well, The Intercept strikes again.  Just read this report of arrests for social media posts and felt it should be brought to anyone's and everyone's attention.  And it follows the theme of threats to things such as free speech.

Original post starts here:  Well, when I went The Intercept, I knew what the next blog post topic must be. Protest and dissent are facing increasing challenges and attacks.  Please, readers, don't just think it only applies to "them" or that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are so "ivory tower" that they have no relevance.  Even if they don't affect YOU directly NOW:  a) you should stand for those rights for others and b) be aware that it might come to affect you in the future - and you'd better hope it's not too late then.

Let's begin:  This report about visits to activists' homes and such in Cleveland was indeed the impetus for this post.  From the article:   “The purpose of these door knocks is simple: to intimidate the target and others in efforts to discourage people from engaging in lawful First Amendment activities,” Jocelyn Rosnick, a coordinator with the Ohio chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, wrote in a statement denouncing the home visits.

Now also consider this (again from the article): 
Maggie Rice, an organizer with Food Not Bombs, said that members of her group were visited by police but felt too “rattled” to speak to a reporter. The group is not planning to stage protests but has applied for permits to be in the RNC event zone in order to feed both protesters and Cleveland residents dealing with disruptions...  [emphasis mine]

In case you're not familiar with some background, there has been much controversy about "rules for protest"  that Cleveland drafted for the days of the  RNC (Repub. Nat'l Convention). You can read in the linked article also that the ACLU of Ohio is suing Cleveland over these rules.  One update I found was that the ACLU of Ohio is asking for a speedy resolution of this suit.

Overreach indeed

Greetings -

This is very concerning...

The Gov. of New York just signed an Executive Order blacklisting those involved with BDS against Israel in support of Palestinian rights.  Whatever position one holds on the issue it should be evident that such an order violates such things we supposedly uphold in this country; things such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.  The government should NOT be blacklisting nor punishing folks for their views. Note Trevor Timm's tweet in the article. And advocating a boycott is indeed a tradition and should be protected. Folks should be able to spend or NOT SPEND to support businesses or causes they believe in and to advocate for the same.

BDS is really seemingly under attack on many fronts.  Professor Steven Salaita made a point on a C-Span presentation that the government is likely to seek to punish those who criticize its interests and the BDS/Palestinian Rights seem to be a real target.  Shouldn't this concern ALL of us?  Wasn't the First Amendment designed to protect AGAINST these sort of abuses?  

And a side note: have you noticed the preponderance of "executive orders" both at the national and now state levels (maybe even local, too, if anyone has been checking...)?  There may be problems with our elected reps, but this sort of executive fiat seems to be setting a possibly VERY dangerous trend.  We should be aware and oppose policies. laws, and "e. o.'s" that violate Constitutional rights.

Fear-Mongering Alerts - II

Greetings ----

In the previous post, we looked at fearmongering and demonizing groups.  But there's also another dimension to the fear-mongering that's being presented to us, which is: clear threats to our civil liberties.

The Intercept has a very interesting article out. The Pres., intelligence community are really fighting to either stop the spread of end-to-end encryption or mandate that tech companies put in backdoors that intelligence spies and Law enforcement can use.  BAD IDEA!!!  Backdoors just make everyone's data LESS safe.  And that's not just me, but the conclusion of a cyber expert quoted in the article.  And the FBI is calling on tech companies to open backdoors to encryption.  Is anyone paying attention?  Why aren't we howling until this spying is radically scaled back, until mass surveillance is truly stopped???

Then there's Hillary, who in addition to worrying about encrypted apps said:  "And this is complicated. You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera..."    FREEDOM OF SPEECH is now a "complaint?"  I thought it was a portion of The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.  You know, Hillary, our freedoms are not pesky handcuffs for law enforcement or intelligence spooks.  They were written to ensure liberty and some protections against government abuses. And a certain clown running for President also wants to talk about "closing the internet?"  Trump is really dangerous; more needs to be done to expose his poor fit to be a U. S.  leader.  I find a general lack of respect for civil liberties and human rights that makes me shake my head in dismay when I look over the field of main Presidential contenders.  I'm not optimistic.
 
And look at what's going on outside the U. S., too.  Say, France.  The French are considering some really draconian legislation -- included on the "wish-list" is banning public wi-fi if there is a state of emergency and outlawing TOR browser.  They also have harassed climate change protesters in Paris. Demonstrations have been disallowed and some key protesters placed on house arrest.  From the article: 
Some protesters argue that the permission granted to football matches, trade fairs and Christmas markets in Paris over the summit period suggests that the authorities’ real concern is to suppress dissent.
“We are trying to find grey areas in the law,” said John Jordan, a prominent activist. “At the moment, a demonstration is legally defined as more than two people who share a political message. We are trying to find creative ways around these laws.”

Oh no, the real intent just couldn't be to stifle dissent, now could it?

And the UK is no slouch, either, in the give-the-spooks-what-they-want department.  

It's time to start realizing that this is NOT about keeping us safe.  Not by a long shot.  There is absolutely NO evidence that mass surveillance has foiled ANY large terror plot. Really do some critical thinking, then, about why there is so much push for surveillance and tracking.  Really think about the kind of world we're building.  Really think about not buying into "the internet of things", not buying that new, more invasive gadget, or being so willing to be digitally tracked by ---- whatever site, ad tracker, offered loyalty card, or nefarious government agency wants to.  Wake up, it's getting late.

Related Posts:

My Update on a Classic

Any More Doubts? 

Any More Doubts (2)? 

L'Affaire Tim Hunt

Whoa!!!  I don't usually blog about what everyone else is Twittering and writing about, but this one got to me.  I'd seen a headline about "distractedly sexy" on my NPR homepage, but didn't bother to check it out.  When I was perusing The Guardian today, I found out it was about Sir Tim Hunt and his inappropriate joke.  

Here's a quick recap.  This brief article lists links to three other articles which have examples of the tweets.  But the time.com one they give has my favorite; the one picturing Madame Curie.


Ok, so his "joke", remark or whatever was stupid, sexist, and inappropriate.  And pushback by tweets is ok.  But should he lose his job?  Sir Tim and his wife speak out to The Guardian.  I was particularly struck by the way the University almost heralded his departure after saying it would be "low key."

Now anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows I despise sexism, racism and all.  But I have to side with Sir Tim on this.  Haven't we all said something stupid or inappropriate at some point?  I don't think that should necessarily be cause to lose one's job.  There's also been another debate about should a person lose a job because of some social media post - done on their own time from home.  So do we also think that's ok?  Or what if Sir Tim had expressed some dissenting view critical of the UK government - or of his university?  Where does the slope end?

Universities in particular should be places of free interchange of knowledge and ideas.  Someone made the analogy of education being a messy bazaar.  We don't need to lose that.  I'm a STEM'er - a retired math professor.  I very well remember reading the research of a team of math researchers whose theme was that females were inherently not as good at math as males.  Certainly that made my blood boil, but I wouldn't call for their resignations.

I'd also like to share some of my experience.  My math professors were really quite supportive, and most of them were white males.  And the math students I had classes with generally were just fine.  I also remember being a lab partner with a fellow as a psych student (before I got into math) and we did just fine together.  And as a professor and member of a community college math department, our department was really quite diverse as far as gender and race. So I don't know if my experience was in any way typical, but I made out well.  I do remember interacting with a top-flight female scientist and businesswoman.  One thing she told me about women in science was that she'd observed that the men do tend to push the women out.  What a shame that would be.  We need all sorts of good minds in STEM, both male and female.  Of course attracting students to STEM fields is another discussion entirely - and there are of course, quite some other factors to be considered besides gender and sexism (i. e., does our society really value education the way it should and does it really value scientific careers?)

I'm sorry that Sir Tim feels that he was "finished."  I hope that he will find some way to keep contributing to the STEM community (and the larger community as well) to which he has already contributed so much.  What's that old saying about the door and the window?

Any More Doubts(2)?

Well, well -the Houston office of the FBI violated FBI procedures in investigating - now get this - environmental protesters.

This report from The Guardian details how procedures were skipped and that protesters of the Keystone XL pipeline were labeled "environmental extremists."  The major subject was a group called the Tar Sands Blockade.  The article states:  "Environmental activists affiliated with the group were committed to peaceful civil disobedience that can involve minor infractions of law, such as trespass. But they had no history of violent or serious crime."   A key organizer stated that some members were arrested  "but not one of them was accused of violent crime or property destruction." Folks who photographed oil-related facilities were also scrutinized.

Mike German, a former FBI agent, now fellow at Brennan Center for Justice in NY, and who consulted with The Guardian on this article had this to say:  “It is clearly troubling that these documents suggest the FBI interprets its national security mandate as protecting private industry from political criticism,” he said."

While the FBI has done good work, we cannot forget that they spied on Dr. King and other civil rights leaders.  SHAME on RFK for authorizing the spying.  There's also another report here. And the FBI apparently had a role in crushing the Occupy protests.  I hadn't seen this article by Naomi Wolf at the time; I just ran across it while doing another search.  I think it makes clear that there was a concerted effort against a peaceful movement which a conglomeration of security state and corporate interests labeled a "terrorist threat."

And lest we forget our neighbor to the North, we've mentioned before Canada's C-51.  Watch out!  The government may use hate crime laws against groups there involved in the BDS movement - that's Boycott, Divest, Sanction against Israel.  You might want to read The Intercept's two-part story (the link here is to the first part, and that story contains a link to part 2).

This is somehow making us more safe?  Remember the President's own Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board did not find mass surveillance to be effective.  Is monitoring peaceful protest and dissent the role of even tightly targeted surveillance?   I think not.  We must continue to speak out against mass surveillance, especially now with Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act set to expire if not renewed. 

Any More Doubts?

Well, there always seems to be something that gets my blood boiling.  At least that helps circuation :-)  Easier than exercising, I suppose!

The latest comes from an article at The Intercept regarding Mall of America's spying on a Black Lives Matter rally there.

Documents show that MOA used a fake facebook account to 'friend' members of the activist groups involved in the rally, gather intel about them under this fake premise without the knowledge of the subjects, and create dossiers on them.  The article also mentions intel efforts involving other activist groups.  Disclaimer: I'm not on facebook, intend to keep it that way - and for me, this is just one more reason for staying off it.

If there were any doubt that this mass surveillance that is becoming all to prevalent is being used to target activists and dissenters for their political views, well, this should put that to rest.  This should set off alarms for all of us.  Just remember if you think it's only "them" who have anything to worry about - the next target may be you - or at least a cause that you espouse.

And to ANYONE who keeps saying - "no expectation of privacy online" - I say:
Is THIS how you would want to be treated by private corporations, law enforcement and government agencies?  Do we want a system that creates dossiers on people just because of their political views?  Isn't that what we would condemn if "other countries" were doing it?

Wake up and smell the coffee, folks.  Wake up and stand up for privacy.

Wake Up, Speak Up, Wise Up

How does one process some of the abuses going on right in U.S.?

Let's start with the case of Tamir Rice, the 12 -year old gunned down by Cleveland Police.  In this article from The Guardian,  the defense of the city of Cleveland is outlined.  It is so incredibly despicable; it really comes down to blaming the victim, a child.  I just cannot comprehend how they can defend the indefensible - just remember the video.  And that Tamir Rice wasn't given medical attention after the shooting until too late. One of the commenters to the story has a link to the original video.

Then there is the revelation that the Chicago PD has been operating a "black site" at the Homan Building in that city.  The Guardian broke the story - it came out of the investigation of  a Chicago cop who was a torture at Gitmo.  Juan Thompson at The Intercept has a follow-up.  There has been at least one commenter at TI saying there are other "black sites."  Thompson says to watch for more follow-ups. 

One commenter at the previously mentioned article on Cleveland's answer to the lawsuit about Tamir Rice posted about an incident in LA that he witnessed and another poster provided this non-facebook link.

The Guardian now has a story up concerning the above incident in LA. 

We'd better keep tabs on this investigation.

And let's not forget the police shooting right in my "backyard."  A rally was just held.  Other reports say police even had machine guns.  Why aren't we asking -is it really necessary to have such arms at peaceful protests? 

That leads into the recent proposal in NYC to start this Strategic Response Group - to handle things like counterterrorism and - protests - saith nefarious Commissioner Bratton.  But even some backtracking doesn't mean we shouldn't be VERY concerned.  Here's the take of Hands Up United.  And speaking of lumping protesters with terrorists - isn't that just what notorious Gov. Walker of WI just did?

I think we'd all better wake up and start raising our voices against such abuses, and such disdain for civil liberties and the rights of us real people.

News Quiz

Greetings. Are you keeping up?  Here's a quiz for you. Ready, set go:

1.  What agency had plans to track driving patterns of Americans on a large scale?

2.  Who this week said that the NSA surveillance was "constitutional and effective?"

3.  What state declined to stop honoring Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee on the same day?

4.  The family of what teen killed by an NYPD officer reached a settlement with the city?

5. What judge is skeptical of the constitutionality and all of no-fly lists?

6.  Who called a group of protesters "low-life scum?"

7.  Who had their 1961 convictions vacated?

For answers, click on "Read more..."

Je Suis Charlie

What can be said in the wake the horrific attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine staff in Paris?  There is a pretty clear sentiment that we must stand united against any threat to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. And that we should keep the victims and their families in our prayers.

Je Suis Charlie.

Nous Sommes Tous Charlie.

I am Charlie.

We are all Charlie.

P. S. 
Let's not forget those who perished aboard the AirAsia Flight and their families - or the Malaysian Air flight - or the flight that crashed in the Ukraine - or victims of torture.  They all still need our prayers as well.

No Justice Until ALL Lives Matter

Hello all:

It is so sad that we again have to decry the sad state of our justice system.  The grand jury in the Eric Garner case has declined to indict.  Here is a pretty good article about the response of some NYC Congresspeople.

I saw part of their news conference. Rep. Jeffries was also excellent, I thought, as was one of the last to speak, but I can't call his name right now.

It should be clear that we certainly have a race problem still in America. Just read some of the articles online which describe problems ---- and some of the intolerant comments you'lll find in comments to some articles about these issues if you don't believe we still have institutional racism. We also have another problem which should be evident in the aftermath of the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown,and Tamir Rice (and please see the latest update in post about his case).  That is "Blue Privilege."  Despite it supposedly being easy to obtain a grand jury indictment, the probability of a police officer being indicted is very low. Let's not forget the increasingly militaristic tone to policing; the original response to Ferguson protests showed laid that bare.  However, this is likely to continue, seeing as the Pres. has declined to reign in, scale back, or otherwise curtail the 1033 program which 'gives' military stuff to local police forces (and which Congress failed to put any brakes on as well).  Here's a good read on this.

There is also a very good article by Steven Thrasher which is definitely worth reading.

So, in wake of slogans such as "Black Lives Matter" and "No Justice, No Peace", I'm proposing this:

"No Justice until ALL lives matter!"


Updates: 

A Cleveland man's experience is told as report is released.

The Phoenix, AZ case.

Requiem for Mike Brown

I use NPR News page as my home page (I know it may be suspect, but it does often has stories not always seen elsewhere...), so when I logged on and saw the headline about a protest for justice for Mike Brown at a St. Louis Symphony concert, I was very intrigued.

It was certainly was worth reading about and viewing the video.  A group of about 50, at the end of intermission, one by one rose and sang.   How stimulating to see a wonderful example of creative and peaceful protest, done by a divergent group united in purpose. They found a means, as Rep. Lewis says, to "Get in the way."  It was also interesting to see the reaction of those not involved with the protest.  The reactions ran from seemingly wondering what is going on, to bemusement, to support, to even annoyance (the one lady in the black gown next to the fellow in glasses who mugged for the camera).  The conductor looked on with patience, which I feel was to his credit.

Here's a more comprehensive article, though.  It has a a report featuring the Symphony's publicist and has two videos accompanying it.  The first is a news report, and the second is the same youtube video I described watching on the NPR News site.

I am so glad that people are continuing to keep the issue alive.   We need to all, in some way, keep up the fight for justice and truth.

Read Any Good Banned Books Lately?

Nothing like being right on top of things.  I just saw that this has been "Banned Books Week", which has many sponsors and endorsers, including the American Library Association and the American Booksellers Association.  Well, there's still today to go!

There have been read-outs of selections from banned or challenged works, and people can even submit videos for a "virtual read-out." 

There are two lists you may wish to peruse: one of frequently banned classics and another of frequently challenged books (21st Century list).

Full disclosure:  I haven't read many of these.  Very few actually.  I did read Animal Farm in high school; wasn't all that impressed with it and remember very little.  I did start reading 1984 but never read the whole thing.  I also started Catch-22 but didn't get very far as I found it made little sense to me.  As far as what's on the challenge list: I started My Sister's Keeper as it was one of our One Book, One College selections one year, and I didn't like it one bit.  Didn't make it to the end, which I think must be a pretty bad one.  I also have I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings which I'm sure is quite good (I really should read it one day...).  However I also did start reading The Glass Castle  by Jeannette Walls (it was also a One Book, One College selection).  I found it very intriguing.  For some reason I haven't finished it - and I was curious as to "what happens next..." - so I think someday I will pick it up again.  And I must shout out to Ms. Walls, who was so very gracious when she signed my copy.

The lists also give reasons for challenges.  One of the most prevalent is "not appropriate to age group."  While I don't agree with censorship, we probably should be somewhat sensitive to content given to say, below high school level students.  Giving alternate reading assignments or holding off on some books until the students are a bit older might be some alternatives.

For older students and of course, adults: have you read any good banned books lately?

Ferguson

After the latest developments from Ferguson, I had to add my voice in decrying the situation.  In going through media reports, more than one person noted we still don't know exactly what happened.  But there is an almost universal condemnation of the tactics the Ferguson police have used against protesters - and against journalists.  If you haven't read reports (and I'll share a link or two in a moment), please note that police in full riot gear, swat teams and snipers, and heavily armed vehicles have been the response to peaceful protests (yes, there has been some looting and such, but for the most part, the core of protests has been peaceful). Not only that, two journalists were arrested, totally without cause, and an Al Jazeera crew was scattered and their equipment dismantled.

In response, the Gov. of MO has replaced the police with the State Highway Patrol and the results so far have been positive.  The U. S. Attorney General has said that Federal entities will get more involved as well and stated that the previous scenes from Ferguson cannot continue.

The situation exposes on so many levels problems in our society.  There is the tendency of police to profile African-American young men.  Many have called attention to the number of fatalities they have suffered at the hands of police (there was just the incident in NYC in which the death of the young man was ruled a homicide).  There are also way too many incidents of brutality by police - often against mentally ill individuals, but women and the elderly have not been immune.  Such reports are very easy to find in a cursory search of the internet.

And there's something else.  The Ferguson situation has given wider exposure to a phenomenon that has been growing and has attracted some attention: the increasing militarization of police forces.  At The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece which gives an overview of both the situation in Ferguson and the problems fostered by the militarization that was so evident there.  In the article are several links to background and reports on this issue.  If you look at what is happening, it should be clear that this increasing militarization presents real threats to Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, and the Press.

I also found this thoughtful article at The Guardian.  It is definitely worth reading.

Finally, in thinking about the threats to our freedoms, here is one of my previous blog posts which I hope you might read - or reread, as it certainly seems a propos to current events.

How Low?

In case you missed this...

The AP found in e-mails obtained by a FOIA request, that our U. S. NSA and intelligence apparatus had notice of the destruction of hard drives of The Guardian which held Snowden files - and celebrated the news! Remember that at the time of the revelation, the White House was distancing itself from the fray.

The Guardian story on this is here.  There is also a fine post on this at The Intercept, including reaction to other recent Intercept stories.

Every time I think the spooks can't descend any further, they seem to hit a new low.  How do we counter the mentality exhibited by their smug arrogance? Suppose we make them all write the First Amendment, by hand, 100  - no, that's not enough - 1,000 times.  Might it then sink into their minds somehow?  What will it take to get them to start respecting our civil liberties?

Some Current Human Rights Issues

Lately we've looked at mainly what has been going on in the U. S.  But there are problems all over. 

Things in Egypt are getting very dangerous for protesters and dissenters - and journalists. A key Egyptian activist was jailed after a questionable trial. Read about it here.   This is in addition to the death sentences handed down to some dissenters.  The U. N. is concerned with these developments.  At least some have taken note.  There was a protest in London reported on in photos.  Latest word is that some journalists were jailed. This from the article:
"That a guilty verdict was still reached hours later, despite Kerry confirming the return of US military and economic aid to Egypt, represented an embarrassment for US diplomacy, analysts argued."

What were we thinking - didn't Washington read about those death sentences?  What, no sanctions?  Unbelievable!

Also, read this which talks a bit more about the situation in Egypt, including the fact that hundreds of political prisoners are being detained.

Elsewhere, China arrested a well-known dissident and sent a white paper to Hong Kong, asserting its final jurisdiction over that special district.  This white paper was distributed days after protests commemorating Tienanmen Square and before activists hold an unofficial referendum on options for 2017 elections in Hong Kong.

Then there are the protests against the World Cup in Brazil.  Here's one article from The Guardian about the experience of some activists.  Why aren't "we" condemning this? In the latest story from Reuters it was noted that the protests are smaller now, peaceful, and the protesters are definitely outnumbered by riot police. Riot police, really?  Why are governments so threatened by small, peaceful protests?  And I wonder why World Cup fever seems to drown out the important message they have.

 Look around.  Be aware that dissent and protest are seen as threatening in so many places around the world.  We all should take a stand for the right to speak freely, assemble freely,  and protest peacefully both at home and elsewhere.

Wrong Again!

Learning today of the Supreme Court declining to hear Hedges v. Obama - you know, the lawsuit challenging the "indefinite detention" provision of the NDAA really made me shake my head in dismay.


For background, here's a story from the Long Island Press (Be sure to read Tangerine? Jennifer? Bolen's facebook post in its entirety), and another from Truth Dig (where you can find articles by Chris Hedges).


I find that the plaintiffs are quite brave to have engaged in this challenge.  The entire idea of indefinite detention is scary.  It's not a stretch to imagine folks being picked up, held without an attorney or legal redress, for who know how long.  It's not a stretch to imagine this could be used against dissenters.  And get this - check out what is says on SCOTUS Blog  So if your not harmed, you don't have standing - but in this case, if you ARE harmed, how can you get any legal redress?  Terrible reasoning, I feel, by the Appeals Court and an equally terrible decision by the Supreme Court not to review this.


Wake up, folks!