Mediaboss Marketing

Istanbul - Seventeen directors and journalists from one of Turkey's most respected opposition newspapers go on trial on Monday after spending over eight months behind bars in a case which has raised new alarm over press freedoms under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The suspects were detained from October last year under the state of emergency implemented after the July 15, 2016 failed coup blamed on the US-based preacher Fethullah Gulen.

The opposition fears the emergency has been used to go after anyone who dares defy Erdogan and if convicted, the defendants face varying terms of up to 43 years in jail.

The trial is seen as a test for press freedoms under Erdogan in Turkey, which ranks 155th on the latest Reporters Without Borders (RSF) world press freedom index, below Belarus and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to the P24 press freedom group, there are 166 journalists behind bars in Turkey, most of whom were arrested under the state of emergency.

Erdogan, however, insisted in an interview earlier this month there were just "two real journalists" behind bars in Turkey.

Blank space columns

Cumhuriyet (Republic), which was set up in 1924 and is Turkey's oldest mainstream national title, has been a thorn in the side of Erdogan in recent years.

It is one of the few genuine opposition voices in the press, which is dominated by strongly pro-government media and bigger mainstream dailies that are increasingly wary of challenging the authorities.

A total of 17 staff of the newspaper - including writers, cartoonists and executives - will go on trial from 06:00 GMT at the imposing palace of justice in Istanbul.

Those appearing in court include some of the best known names in Turkish journalism including the columnist Kadri Gursel, the paper's editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu and the respected cartoonist Musa Kart.

Also being tried in the case is the investigative journalist Ahmet Sik who in 2011 wrote an explosive book "The Imam's Army" exposing the grip Gulen's movement had on the Turkish state.

The book was initially banned and caused a sensation when published on the internet as "000Kitap" ("000Book").

Eleven of the 17 suspects including Gursel, Sabuncu, Kart and Sik, are held in jail with the other six free under judicial supervision.

Being tried in absentia in the case is the paper's former editor-in-chief Can Dundar, who was last year handed a five-year-and-10-month jail term over a front-page story accusing the government of sending weapons to Syria.

He has now fled Turkey for Germany.

Those held will on the first day of the trial have been imprisoned for 267 days, with the exception of Sik, who has been held for 206 days.

Since their arrests, Cumhuriyet has continued publishing the columns of the jailed journalists but with a blank white space instead of text.

'Turkish journalism on trial'

Supporters have labelled the charges against the newspaper staff as absurd and simply an attempt to muzzle the newspaper.

They are charged with supporting in the newspaper's writings no less than three groups considered by Turkey as terror outfits -- the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the ultra-left Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C) and Gulen's movement, which Ankara calls the Fethullah Terror Organisation (FETO).

But supporters insist that the paper has always been bitterly critical of the three groups, including Gulen's organisation. Gulen denies any link to the failed coup.

The indictment accuses Cumhuriyet of beginning a "perception operation" with the aim of starting an "asymmetric war" against Erdogan.

"It's journalism in Turkey, not just Cumhuriyet, that is being put on trial," said RSF secretary general Christophe Deloire.

"Journalists are yet again being treated as terrorists just for doing their job," he added.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in an opinion released last month, said it found that the detention of the staff was arbitrary and that they should be immediately released and given the right to compensation.

It said that their imprisonment "resulted from the exercise of their rights and freedoms" and said it was concerned by the "vagueness" of the charges of aiding terror groups.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

Here is the original post:
Turkey puts on trial 17 staff from anti-Erdogan daily - News24

BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:30 P.M.) Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the violence in East Jerusalem and called on the governments concerned to resolve the situation at al-Aqsa, during a press conference in Istanbul on Sunday.

He said he and French President Emmanuel Macron do not approve the violations against the rights of life, the rights of property and the right to worship no matter who does it. He went on to invite the Israeli administration to behave according to the rules of a settled society, [of] justice and of basic humanitarian values.

Disputes regarding the holy site of al-Aqsa Mosque have sparked violent clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian demonstrators in recent days.

Erdogan also mentioned his upcoming trip to the Gulf region, where he will be visiting Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in a bid to resolve the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its neighbouring countries. Gulf States have cut ties with Qatar after accusing the country of supporting terrorism.

ALSO READ Dozens detained at Ankara protest over imprisoned teachers

The rest is here:
Erdogan condemns al-Aqsa violence before flying to Gulf states - AMN Al-Masdar News (registration)

A controversial op-ed published in the New York Times earlier this month argued that it was reasonable for universities to ban lectures by speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos on the grounds that certain speech can constitute violence. Author Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, sought to provide substantive weight to a refrain used increasingly by liberal campus activists in their attempts to censor controversial speakers, most of whom happen to be right-of-center.

In that respect, her op-ed was a welcome contribution to the discussion, since these activists rarely appear capable of offering substantive defenses of this contention, which is key to their pleas for censorship.

But if Barrett's argument is the best their side has, and given her credentials I imagine that's the case, they're still in trouble.

In her op-ed, Barrett did concede that "offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain."

"In contrast," she asserted, "long stretches of simmering stress" can be "bad for your nervous system."

If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that's the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That's also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Barrett concluded, "That's why it's reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hate monger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school." Yiannopoulos, per her assessment, "is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse."

"There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering," she wrote.

But isn't that a different argument? Is Yiannopoulos objectionable because he's not offering debate or because he creates "long stretches of simmering stress"? And how does one hour of Yiannopoulos' speech on one night of the school year reasonably create such a "long stretch of simmering stress"?

Barrett compares Yiannopoulos to Charles Murray writing, "On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but it's only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade."

But where is that line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

There are stark differences between the two men in question, but the same arguments about speech are made to block more scholarly speakers such as Ben Shapiro who don't shy from communicating with a bolder style, but do so with the intention of facilitating a productive conversation. (That, for the record, is why I've argued elevating Yiannopoulos, a non-conservative who is perceived as one, confounds the larger debate about campus censorship.)

Notably, Yiannopoulos claims to have the same intentions of "offering debate" as Murray and Shapiro. Barrett can argue that's insincere or inaccurate, but his allies, and some of his detractors, make reasonable arguments otherwise.

What is the "scientific" explanation as to why his speech is "part of a campaign of abuse"? Many would (wrongfully) argue the exact same is true of Murray's speech. Unless Barrett can supply convincing answers to these questions, proving exactly what words cross the line into psychologically-violent territory, her attempt to draw objective parameters is still just as subjective as the ones one made by protesters of Murray's lectures, with whom she disagrees.

If Barrett could objectively prove how one hour of speech creates "a culture of constant, casual brutality," and why we should trust the arbiters of that definition, her argument would be more persuasive. In the meantime, students should still consider themselves psychologically capable of tolerating hour-long intervals of offensive speech, "noxious" as it may be, and attend a few lectures when they return to school in the fall.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read more from the original source:
Another failed argument for campus censorship - Washington Examiner

Jordanian police outside Israeli embassy in Amman . (photo credit:SOCIAL MEDIA)

The world knew about it, reported on it but in Israel there was nothing. For about 11 hours between Sunday night Monday morning, Israelis were forbidden from reporting on the events taking place in Jordan.

The fact that social media was full of the news about the anapparent attacknear the Israeli embassy in Amman and stories had been published by Reuters, Fox News, the Independent and elsewhere, meant nothing. In Israel, journalists could not send out a tweet or post a word on Facebook. Everything about the attack was banned for publication by the Military Censor's Office.

Shortly before the incident was placed under censorship, some information got through. Zionist Union MK Ksenia Svetlova managed to launch a tweet saying only that there was a dangerous security incident at the embassy in Jordan.

Initially, reports were unclear, but it was learned that at least one Israeli security officer at the embassy had been injured after he was stabbed by a Jordanian who was subsequently shot. Svetlova called on the Jordanian government to take all the necessary steps to ensure the security of the personnel at the embassy.

According to a Foreign Ministry statement, the Israeli had been stabbed in the stomach in Amman by a man with a screwdriver moving furniture in one of the residences in the embassy compound Sunday night. The guard shot the assailant identified as Mohammed Zakaria al-Jawawdeh, 17 in self defense. Al-Jawawdeh was killed, and another man at the scene the owner of the compound was injured and later succumbed to his wounds.

These details became available as the night progressed and foreign outlets, including news agencies, reported on the developments. But in Israel, complete radio silence.

Of course anybody with internet access and basic English or Arabic reading skills (or the ability to use online translation services) could learn all about it easily. News reports appeared throughout the entire international media - on Reuters, Fox News, the Independent and elsewhere. Everyone was reporting about the incident. The only ones who didn't know were Israelis.

Slightly before midnight, the Jordanian General Security Administration released an official statement saying that the incident was being investigated. But Israeli media couldn't even report that.

Reporters couldn't even alert readers in Israel to the fact that the Foreign Ministry decided to evacuate all it staff from the Israeli embassy in Amman out of concern that the incident may cause riots outside the embassy, or that the move was stymied by Jordan.

It was that reason that the full censorship of the incident remained in place until Monday morning, hours after the incident. International and local Jordanian media, who began reporting the event shortly after it occurred continued to release details which Israeli media and foreign journalists with Israeli press cards were barred from reporting on.

Censorship was finally lifted early Monday morning. At this point Israel still has not fully evacuated embassy staff and the Jordanians have still refused to let the guard be transferred back to Israel. Jerusalem claims the guard enjoys diplomatic immunity and is exempt from investigation by Jordanian authorities.

The decision to leave Israelis in the dark was criticized by Israeli journalists and politicians. Unlike previous incidents in this case Israelis were also prohibited from citing foreign media sources for the story.

At a time when information flows freely on the internet, many questioned the need for the censorship, which journalists and pundits argued Monday morning, was out of touch.

More details to follow.... maybe.

Share on facebook

Link:
Censor keeps Israelis in the dark as world learns of Jordan embassy saga - The Jerusalem Post

A South African girl born with the AIDS virus has kept her infection suppressed for more than eight years after stopping anti-HIV medicines more evidence that early treatment can occasionally cause a long remission that, if it lasts, would be a form of cure.

A South African girl born with the AIDS virus has kept her infection suppressed for more than eight years after stopping anti-HIV medicines more evidence that early treatment can occasionally cause a long remission that, if it lasts, would be a form of cure.

Her case was revealed Monday at an AIDS conference in Paris, where researchers also gave encouraging results from tests of shots every month or two instead of daily pills to treat HIV.

Thats very promising to help people stay on treatment, the U.S.s top AIDS scientist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said of the prospects for long-acting drugs.

Current treatments keep HIV under control but must be taken lifelong. Only one person is thought to be cured the so-called Berlin patient, a man who had a bone marrow transplant in 2007 from a donor with natural resistance to HIV.

But transplants are risky and impractical to try to cure the millions already infected. So some researchers have been aiming for the next best thing long-term remission, when the immune system can control HIV without drugs even if signs of the virus remain.

Aggressive treatment soon after infection might enable that in some cases, and the South African girl is the third child who achieved a long remission after that approach.

She was in a study sponsored by the agency Fauci heads, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that previously found that early versus delayed treatment helped babies survive.

The girl, who researchers did not identify, started on HIV drugs when she was 2 months old and stopped 40 weeks later. Tests when she was 9 1/2 years old found signs of virus in a small number of immune system cells, but none capable of reproducing. The girl does not have a gene mutation that gives natural resistance to HIV infection, Fauci said, so her remission seems likely due to the early treatment.

The previous cases:

A French teen who was born with HIV and is now around 20 has had her infection under control despite no HIV medicines since she was roughly 6 years old.

A Mississippi baby born with HIV in 2010 suppressed her infection for 27 months after stopping treatment before it reappeared in her blood. She was able to get the virus under control again after treatment resumed.

At least a dozen adults also have had remissions lasting for years after stopping HIV medicines.

A study underway now is testing whether treating HIV-infected newborns within two days of birth can control the virus later after treatment stops. It started in 2014 in South America, Haiti, Africa and the United States, and some of the earliest participants might be able to try stopping treatment later this year.

Treatment might get easier if two large studies underway now confirm results reported Monday from a study testing a long-acting combo of two HIV drugs Janssens rilpivirine and ViiV Healthcares cabotegravir.

Cabotegravir is experimental; rilpivirine is sold now as Edurant and used in combination with other drugs for treating certain types of HIV patients.

After initial treatment to get their virus under control, about 300 study participants were given either daily combination therapy pills or a shot every four or eight weeks of the long-acting drug duo to maintain control.

After nearly two years, 94 percent on eight-week shots, 87 percent on four-week shots and 84 percent on daily pills had their infections suppressed, with similar rates of side effects.

The results were good regardless of whether people came monthly or every two months for their treatment. This has important policy implications, said Dr. Linda-Gail Bekker, deputy director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and a co-leader of the conference.

The study was sponsored by the drugmakers. Results were published in the British medical journal Lancet.

Two large studies aimed at winning approval to sell the treatment are testing the monthly shots. Janssen said in a statement that good results from eight-week shots warrant reconsidering the longer approach.

If it works, this will have a huge impact on how we manage that very important group of people who are not able to access and take drugs on a day-to-day basis, such as those with mental health or drug abuse problems, said Dr. Steven Deeks, an AIDS specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. ___

See more here:
Girl's HIV Infection Seems Under Control Without AIDS Drugs - Houston Public Media