Mediaboss Marketing

Mikhail Ivshin/newzulu/NewscomThis week, The Washington Post joins several other large media outlets in giving commentary space to an academic who thinks the First Amendment maybe shouldn't protect so much free speech.

I'll give Jennifer DeltonSkidmore College's "Douglas Family Chair in American culture, history, and literary and interdisciplinary studies"this much: She's not disguising her calls for censorship of conservative opinion by claiming this will achieve some sort of racial enlightenment or equality. She openly describes this censorship as a tool for stopping the spread of political arguments she sees as dangerous.

Her example is the purge of Communist Party members from unions, the civil service, and academia in the middle of the 20th century because they were a threat to the established liberal control of the Democratic Party. The argument was that these Communists did not actually believe in free speech (probably true) and were using it as a shield to protect them while they attempt to undermine democracy.

She sees similar tactics in the alt-right, which Delton says is using speech as a weapon to attack liberal values and colleges:

It is true that higher education has brought much of this on itself through the extreme policing of speech and tolerance of student protesters who shut down speakers with whom they disagree. But that doesn't diminish the extent to which the alt-right and conservatives are using "free speech" to attack and destroy colleges and universities, which have long promoted different variations of the internationalist, secular, cosmopolitan, multicultural liberalism that marks the thinking of educated elites of both parties.

Hilariously, she ends her commentary by saying the process of depriving these bad people of their First Amendment freedoms should not be used to censor "liberal critics" of college or government behavior. Only wrong people should be censored!

The title of this op-ed, by the way, is "When 'free speech' becomes a political weapon." Writers aren't typically responsible for their headlines, but her op-ed does describe speech as a weapon; the title reflects the piece accurately. So it's worth wondering whether Delton even grasps that she wants censorship to be a political weapon. She wants to use the government to shut down speech that undermines the institutions she and many others value. It's almost as though she understands the actual underpinnings of Supreme Court case that brought us the tiresome "fire in a crowded theater" tropea case that revolved around the prosecution of anti-war protestand still supports the ruling.

It's also fascinating in that Delton doesn't seem to want to engage in the idea that academia could actually win a debate on these issues. There is no hint in her story there could be a debate in which the values she holds dear change minds and influence people. Her commentary opens with a starkbut completely falsechoice for college presidents: Either they let conservatives speak and "risk violent counterprotests" or they censor speakers and "confirm" the speech crisis. She sees those as the only two options, as though it's simply not possible to stop violence at protests.

Many of us outside the academic bubble keep reminding folks that if the government has the authority to decide what sort of speech gets censored, it won't be people like Delton calling the shots, and that in all likelihood, it will be the weakest and least influential of our citizens who will be punished.

Now that so many of these commentaries have found homes at major media sites, it's also worth asking: What the bloody hell are these massive news outlets thinking when they run these?

Certainly news outlets should run whatever commentaries they want, and it's beneficial to present a range of different views. Don't take this as a call for media censorship, just for more thoughtful judgment.

We happen to have a president openly at war with the media and who has very little understanding or concern about the First Amendment. When major media outlets give such a high profile to commentaries that call for political censorship, are they not aware that this could blow back on them as well? Is this like media criticism of the Citizens United decision, where newspapers think that they'd be immune to censorship of corporations because the First Amendment has distinct, separate protections for the press?

Delton's justifications for compromising the First Amendment can very easily be adapted to call for censorship of the media as well. The Trump administration is openly flirting with going after media outlets who publish confidential government information. Their argument is that these leaks undermine the government and American democracy. That sounds a lot iike Delton's argument, just with a different target in mind.

Read the original post:
Why Are Media Outlets Giving Commentary Space to Wannabe Censors? - Reason (blog)

Spray area/ Provided photo

Oswego County is making final preparations for aerial spraying to control the mosquito population in the county.

In a release Wednesday the county's health department said the state had declared an "Imminent Threat to Public Health" from mosquito-borne disease, which the health department says allows it to begin actions to control the mosquito population, including aerial spraying.

The declaration comes after the discovery of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) virus in samples of bird-biting mosquitoes collected in the area of Toad Harbor Swamp on the shore of Oneida Lake.

A date for aerial spraying hasn't been determined yet, but the health department says it will be shared with the public as soon as a date is determined.

Aerial spraying is a temporary, partial control measure to reduce mosquito populations and reduce the risk of human infection from the EEE virus, said Oswego County Public Health Director Jiancheng Huang. It is most effective when it is conducted in a concentrated area with large populations of EEE virus positive mosquitoes. Widespread random spraying is not effective in controlling EEE.

Residents within the spray zone will be notified of the aerial spraying. More information can be found on the county's website.

According to the health department, the following area will be subject to spraying:

See more here:
Oswego County preparing to perform aerial spraying to control mosquito population - CNYcentral.com

Russian playwright Anton Chekhov noted that, as a dramatic device, a gun introduced in the first act of a play must be fired in the second, otherwise it has no reason to be there. Lets hope thats not as true in life as it is in art, now that we have an armed racist right squaring off against leftist counter-protesters in public confrontations.

Weve already seen violence, even death, at these rallies. But the potential is for much worse if participants continue to carry guns into such provocative situations. The question is how to minimize the risk without trampling peoples constitutional rights.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution establishes the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. The 2nd Amendment creates a right to own firearms. Neither is absolute. Nevertheless, firearms have become a significant presence in our culture, and only a dozen states prohibit people from carrying them openly in public. Whats more, over 40 states have NRA-backed preemption laws, which to varying degrees limit the ability of local governments to adopt stricter gun regulations than the state as a whole.

Virginia is a preemption state that also allows open carry, and the nation saw the results at Charlottesville, where paramilitary militias men heavily armed with military-style weapons and in some cases battle gear appeared as part of the Unite the Right rally. But far-left groups, including the so-called Redneck Revolt, a liberal pro-gun group, have also paraded around with their firearms at various demonstrations.

Now, another provocative rally aimed at promoting the true Confederate heritage is planned for Sept. 23 in Austin, Texas. Billing it as a Dixie Freedom Rally, its organizers, the Texas Confederate Militia, are telling prospective attendees that state law will allow them to bring openly carried and concealed handguns, as well as long rifles. Given the mix of firearms, passions and politics, its not hard to see the potential for violence.

This is a problem that the nation must resolve. A group of self-organized, trained and heavily armed men (and these groups are predominantly male) is a paramilitary organization, and giving it megaphones and parade banners doesnt magically transform it into something peaceful. Adding open carry to a contentious event can put public safety at risk, and the presence of visible firearms creates unique problems for the police.

Open carry can also be an act of intimidation. Heres one illustration: During the Unite the Right event, gun-toting and swastika-carrying Nazis chanting anti-Semitic slogans marched past a Charlottesville synagogue containing 40 worshippers, leaving them so frightened that they felt compelled to sneak out the back. And heres another: In April 2016, opposing protesters at a Dallas-area Nation of Islam mosque engaged in a tense face-off that, fortunately, ended without those Chekhovian firearms being used. This is not the America we want.

Another complicating factor: Two dozen states, including Texas, have adopted stand your ground laws similar to the one that became an issue in Florida after George Zimmerman shot of wrongdoing after shooting dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a confrontation. The details differ among the states, but at their core the laws allow people to shoot to kill if they perceive they are under physical threat.

Incendiary political speech, demonstrators, open-carry and stand-your-ground laws what could possibly go wrong here?

This is madness. Police train to control unruly crowds, and develop strategies for separating rival groups of protesters, but are they equipped and able to keep the peace when the protesters have become paramilitary militias? If states such as Virginia and Texas insist on allowing citizens to brazenly strut around their streets with guns slung over their shoulders like Third World mercenaries, they must at least make an exception at rallies and demonstrations. A ban on weapons from firearms to pointed sticks, concealed or carried openly should be a condition for obtaining a permit.

Boston took the right approach this weekend at a controversial Free Speech rally that drew 40,000 protesters: Anything that could be used as a weapon, from guns to sharp sticks, was prohibited.

Fearing violence, some lawmakers and advocates have urged officials not to give permits, period, for these contentious rallies. But thats the wrong answer. Its not the right to speech and assembly that should be restricted; its the right to carry guns in certain potentially explosive situations. Gun advocates like to argue they have the right to bear arms as a bulwark against tyrannical government, but government has a responsibility here as well: to keep people safe.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

View post:
Don't restrict free speech. Restrict the right to carry guns at potentially explosive public events - Los Angeles Times

Pittenger asks: Why aren't liberals condemning Black Lives Matter and others? Sacramento Bee The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag gained prominence on social media after the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, who was charged in the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, a black teen, in Florida. The first Black Lives Matter protests came after the shooting ... and more »

Continue reading here:
Pittenger asks: Why aren't liberals condemning Black Lives Matter and others? - Sacramento Bee

Social networking is all the rage. Kids these days have mostly moved to Instagram and Snapchat rather than Facebook, but many have profiles and access on all of the above and then some. Various websites continue to sprng up for the sole purpose of providing a place for users to express themselves, share with like-minded individuals, discover new things, and communicate with others. Theres a good chance there are some cutting edge social network platforms youre not even aware of, but your kids areand so are the predators that want to target your kids.

There have been numerous instances of sexual predators and child molesters posing as children to network with young victims on Facebook. The concept of social networking extends to other areas as well. For example, Youtube provides users with the ability to express their creativity, network, rate their favorite video clips, etc. While not directly related to a social network, Craigslist, the popular regional classified listings site, has used by a predators to lure victims.

Some sites like Flickr, Tumblr, or PhotoBucket provide users with the ability to post and share photos and family videos. It is possible to restrict access and only let users you identify view the pictures, but many users are proud of their kids and their photographic skills and allow the general public to view the photos as well. Child molesters and sexual deviants can search through these sites as well, though, and bookmark their favorite photos of young boys and girls.

The bottom line is that social networking is hugely popular and it is big business. Unfortunately, child molesters, sexual predators, and scam artists have discovered that these sites can also be exploited to find victims. Anywhere online that allows for commenting and communication can also be exploited by predators and bullies.

Follow these steps to use social networking sites responsibly and avoid becoming a victim:

Go here to see the original:
5 Ways to Protect Against Predators and Bullies on Social Networks - TechSpective