The Covid vaccine gave me side effects that ruined my life, but Facebook keeps censoring me from telling my friends about what happened

Caroline Pover

There has been a LOT of censorship of what you can say about Covid and the government response to it.  And that is still ongoing.  My post yesterday about the words of an eminent medical man is part of what was censored.  One has to wonder what is being hidden.  Is it the reality that the vaccines and lockdowns did more harm than good overall?

So I am inclined to think that it is time I started noting some of the censorship episodes here.  See below:


A woman who says she suffered chronic health complications after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine claims to have been censored from sharing her story on Facebook.

Caroline Pover, 52, received the jab in March 2021 and within nine hours, experienced convulsions, shivering, breathing difficulties and low blood pressure.

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

Ms Pover, herself a freelance journalist and entrepreneur, said: 'My posts about what was happening to me started having FB “notes” appearing underneath them about vaccination.

'A group page I was an admin on was shut down completely by Facebook in the summer of 2021.

'When I posted the Daily Express article, which did an excellent job of not discussing anything pro or anti... I received a warning and the post was hidden.

'It's a ridiculous situation for vaccine-injured people, who have a right to information.

'If this was an online support group relating to cancer or another type of serious condition, we'd be outraged at the thought of it being censored and we'd be very sensitive to people having to navigate a very complicated health situation.'

Ms Pover said she made her first post about vaccine side effects on March 3, 2021, shortly after receiving a Covid jab.

She said: 'In the week that followed I was posting about my health and I always thought I'd be fine the next day.

'After a few weeks, I noticed that little notes from Facebook were appearing whenever I posted anything relating to the vaccine.'

Ms Pover claims she was subsequently 'shadow banned' on Facebook and that often, her posts failed to appear in the timelines of her friends and family.

She said: 'People would tag me in posts and complain that they weren't getting any traction. I'd say to them, "don't tag me, it will just disappear if you do."'

Ms Pover says that over time, the censorship led her to develop a specific writing style that would help prevent posts from being flagged up.

She has also written a book about people receiving adverse reactions from Covid jabs, which was picked up by a publisher last year.

And she says her experiences with censorship have only made her even more determined to share her message.

Ms Pover said: 'The physical health struggles we face aren't just what happens in the minutes, hours or days immediately after injection; it's what we are still dealing with years later, as well as the impact of being censored.'

Facebook has been approached for comment.

Elsewhere on the platform, UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her sports therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.  

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

AstraZeneca said in a statement: 'Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

'Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems.

'From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

'The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has granted full marketing approval for Vaxzevria for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12942189/Covid-vaccine-effects-Facebook-censoring.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

One of my blogs has been censored

Google has deleted the post that I put up on Dissecting Leftism  yesterday. It reported a very skeptical article about the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

 Never mind, however as the post is still available on my backup site:  

https://johnjayray.com/jan24.html

Just scroll down tothe post of 9th.  

The article is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ex-who-advisormrna-covid-19-vaccines-dangerous-09b8d28e

The originating story is here:

https://www.aussie17.com/p/my-story-by-professor-gabriel-oon

There were actually two articles in my post yesterday.  The second was a  perfectly rigorous statistical analysis of seasonal influences on Covid incidence.  I can't see that Google would object to it so I have reprinted it under yesterday's date.  It is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.ceres-science.com/post/new-research-finds-the-natural-seasonality-of-coronaviruses-had-more-influence-on-the-covid-19-pande

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Blue States Are Censorship States

Elon Musk is always saying interesting things, but this we found to be especially so: “$44 billion was not the cost of Twitter. It was the cost of free speech.”

Whatever eccentricities and human frailties the man has, his commitment to the cause of free speech isn’t one of them. Let’s face it: It’s become increasingly apparent that Musk didn’t buy Twitter to expand his financial fortune. Nor did he buy it just to slap a fancy X on it. He bought it because he understood that free speech is fundamental to a free and prosperous society, and he saw it slipping away. And we can be increasingly thankful for Musk’s commitment to the marketplace of ideas as we get closer to the 2024 election because, if the events of 2020 taught us anything, it’s that election season is censorship season for Big Tech and Big Government.

Evidence of this reality — that the Left will soon begin to collude to suppress your speech — can be seen in a recent and ominous development: the suspension of Chaya Raichik’s Facebook page.

Raichik’s Facebook page is better known as “Libs of TikTok,” and she was notified Saturday that it had been suspended. Lucky for Raichik, though, she also has a “Libs of TikTok” X page. She used that X page to post a screenshot of the email she’d received from the Facebook censors: “The page Libs of Tik Tok has been suspended for going against our Community Standards. You cannot visit the Page and you won’t be able to add new people to work on the Page.”

Since its inception in November 2020, Raichik’s “Libs of TikTok” franchise has become hugely influential. As independent journalist Bari Weiss notes, it now has more than 1.4 million followers, and it was suspended six times in 2022 alone — typically for a week, and typically for a violation of Facebook’s dubious “hateful conduct” policy. Which is rich, because all Raichik tends to do is repost material from, yes, liberals on TikTok.

Presiding over this suspension is a monstrous entity we might call The Censorship Industrial Complex, which is shorthand for the aforementioned alliance between Big Tech and Big Government to censor speech that they or their Democrat Party brethren find inconvenient or objectionable. It’s an alliance that’s alive and well in certain states but is butting up against resistance in certain other states.

Indeed, we can readily identify these states as either censorship states or free-speech states — or, to keep it simple, as blue states and red states. Constitutional law professor and free-speech advocate Jonathan Turley did just that, in fact, in a recent column. He writes:

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censorship on social media. Many citizens oppose such efforts to restrict their rights under the First Amendment, but are unaware of the work of their representatives to limit free speech. Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.

The court filing that Turley mentions was made by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Simply put, it’s an amicus brief meant to persuade the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Missouri v. Biden barring the federal government from colluding with social media platforms to censor speech — an activity in clear violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Our Nate Jackson wrote about that momentous Fifth Circuit decision back in July — a 155-page throat punch of a decision authored by Judge Terry Doughty that fittingly came down on Independence Day. As Doughty wrote:

If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Think about that: “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Now think about the efforts of California AG Bonta to overturn Doughty’s decision, and think about all the other speech-suppressing states that have signed on to his effort, which is euphemistically described as a fight against “harmful content” and “misleading information” by a noble partnership between the state and social media companies.

Here we need to stress that if you trust the state to partner with Big Tech to protect you from harmful speech, you’re either a sucker or a Democrat.

Thus signing on to Bonta’s brief and thereby joining California as censorship states are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

If you look closely at the above-listed states, you might detect a pattern: Each of them is being governed by a Democrat.

Next time you think about red states and blue states, you might think about them in a new way: free-speech states and censorship states.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/103286-blue-states-are-censorship-states-2024-01-04

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

'Vaccine victims' left with life-changing injuries from the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab say they've been censored online when speaking out

I am putting this up as a free-speech issue but it is of course a medical issue too. So I thought I might mention that I got two shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine and did not get even a sore arm out of it. And I gather that most recipients were not significantly troubled by it. So the people who are complaining below may be:

1). Blaming the vaccine for some injury that had another cause. Many things may oocur in close sequence without one causing the other.

2). Affected by some rare pre-existing physical condition that interacted with the vaccine.

In both cases it is a bit much to blame the vaccine-makers for failing to see and prevent the problems concerned


People who were left with life-changing injuries after being given the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab claim they have been censored while trying to speak out on social media about their symptoms.

They believe they are vaccine victims who suffered a number of severe reactions, including a father-of-two who formed a blood clot after being given the vaccine in spring 2021 causing a permanent brain injury.

The man is in the process of suing the pharmaceutical giant at the High Court in London over the injury, while the widower of a woman who died from the jab has also brought a claim.

Now other 'victims' who claim they reacted badly to the jab who are not involved in legal proceedings have claimed sites such as Facebook have given them 'warnings' when they have tried to speak to others about their experiences.

They alleged that they are being forced to 'self censor' and speak in cryptic language to avoid having groups shut down, the Telegraph reported.

UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her Sports Therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12935953/victim-life-changing-injuries-jab-speaking-censored.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Bank worker wins £490,000 payout after being unfairly dismissed for using the N-word in anti-racism training

A bank manager who was unfairly sacked for seeking advice on what to do if he heard a black person using the N-word at work has won a £490,000 payout.

Father-of-two Carl Borg-Neal, 59, from Andover, Hampshire, raised the question during a Lloyds Bank race education training session on July 16, 2021, but in doing so inadvertently used the word in full himself. He apologised immediately.

It left the woman leading the exercise apparently so 'badly distressed' that she had to take a week off – a 'key reason' for the decision to dismiss Mr Borg-Neal for gross misconduct.

The former mayor and councillor blamed dyslexia and successfully claimed disability discrimination.  

This week, he was awarded almost £500,000 in damages. Added to Lloyds's legal costs and tax, the bank has a bill of nearly £1million.

The payout is the culmination of a two-year battle to clear his name after working for the bank and its affiliates for 30 years.

He told The Telegraph:  'I often wonder if I wasn't a white middle-aged male would I have had to go through everything I went through. There is no way of telling. You are bottom of everything.'

This week, he was awarded almost £500,000 in damages by an employment tribunal that said Lloyds had unfairly sacked Mr Borg-Neal.

The London Central Employment Tribunal panel said the manager was thinking of 'the use of the N-word by black people in rap lyrics or to each other when playing basketball' and did not intend to cause hurt, adding that his question was valid and without malice.

The tribunal added that the bank had discriminated against him on account of his dyslexia, which leads him to 'spurt things out before he loses his train of thought'.

The distraught 59-year-old is unemployed and although he has accepted the £500,000 granted to him, what he really wanted was his old, 'perfect', job back.

Moreover, even though he has received a payout worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, Lloyds has never apologised for treating him like a 'pariah' and alleging he was racist - which Mr Borg-Neal firmly denies.

Lloyds did not respond when asked whether they would apologise to Mr Borg-Neal by MailOnline.

At the time of the initial ruling, Lloyds Bank said: 'We have a zero-tolerance policy on... racist language and are considering appealing the judgment made.'

Today, a Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson said: 'We received the judgement in August and accept its findings.'

The tribunal's 46-page ruling said the case raised serious questions over how top establishments like Lloyds Bank handled 'very sensitive issues' in diversity training.

The panel in question took place in July 2021 and was attended over the Internet by around 100 Lloyds Bank managers.

Mr Bord-Neal asked how a situation should be approached when an ethnic minority person used a term usually perceived as offensive to their own community.

The trainer didn't understand the question, so Mr Borg-Neal said: 'The most common example being [the] use of n***** in the black community.'

People in the training session described how the training manager told Mr Borg-Neal off and threatened to expel him from the course.

Mr Borg-Neal said the manager 'went mad' and even though he tried to apologise she just kept 'shouting' at him.

The former Lloyds employee has been left deeply hurt by his sacking and the accusation of racism.

He added:  'Couldn't Lloyds have been more mature and admit their mistake and apologise publicly? They made a massive error and they won't say sorry.'

The tribunal said: 'It has hurt the claimant a great deal that he has been branded as a racist'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12933351/Bank-worker-wins-490-000-payout-unfairly-dismissed-using-N-word-anti-racism-training-session-says-middle-aged-white-men-bottom-everything.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Muslim antisemitism stirs up free speech debate

The debate over permitting antisemitic speech goes back a long way, with a general conclusion that it is best permitted.  But  Muslim speech against Israel has been so hateful that it undermines that conclusion.  There are many calls for it to be banned

Antisemitism runs deep among the Left, however, so there is little doubt that Muslim hate speech will eventually be excused on free speech grounds


A move to overhaul the law criminalising hate speech in New South Wales following clashes across Sydney amid community tensions over the Israel-Hamas war has sparked debate over the limits of freedom of speech.

The NSW premier, Chris Minns, this week ordered a review of the 2018 law that made it a crime to threaten or incite violence based on race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, because to date crimes under the laws had never been successfully prosecuted.

Minns said he did not believe the racial vilification portion of the legislation went far enough despite already being “strict”.

“You can protest, but you can’t take it so far that you’re advocating for violence or hatred on city streets,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday morning. He said there was “no point” having the laws if they were not used.

“With a state as big as ours, there are going to be ratbags and bad-faith actors and if they go too far they need to be charged,” he said.

Religious organisations, including those representing Jewish communities, have complained that the laws are useless in policing hate speech and called for an overhaul. Faith NSW’s chief executive, Murray Norman, said the government needed to lower the bar for conviction.

“There is freedom of speech in NSW and we need to protect that but we also need to make sure that people aren’t inciting others to hatred and violence,” he said. “The bar [is] set too high.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/15/free-speech-advocates-at-odds-with-faith-groups-over-nsw-hate-speech-law-overhaul

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Proton Mail Says It Will Defy Australia's Impending 'Online Safety' Law

Secure email service provider Proton Mail has added its voice to a growing number of tech companies concerned that Australia's proposed "online safety" regulation will force firms to break encryption to expose user data to governments and potentially criminal syndicates.

Proton offers end-to-end encrypted email, virtual private network (VPN), and online data and password storage services. Its slogan is "privacy by default."

The Australian proposal has already been heavily criticised by the Global Encryption Coalition, which comprises the Center for Democracy & Technology, Global Partners Digital, the Internet Freedom Foundation, the Internet Society, Mozilla, Access Now, and Digital Rights Watch.

Andy Yen, founder and CEO of Proton, told The Epoch Times: "With the current eSafety proposals, the Internet as we know it faces a very real threat. The proposed standards would force online services—no matter whether they are end-to-end encrypted or not—to access, collect, and read their users' private conversations.

"These proposals could not only break encryption, but could put businesses and citizens at risk while doing little to protect people from the online harms they are intended to address."

Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has released the draft standard, which applies to services including "email, instant messaging, short messages services (SMS), multimedia message services (MMS) and chat, as well as services that enable people to play online games with each other and dating services."

Other "apps and websites ... as well as online file storage services" will also be covered. Everything online, provided it's accessible to Australians (even if there are no visitors) is captured.

While Ms. Inman Grant insists providers will not need to breach encryption to comply with the standard, the Global Encryption Coalition says it will be impossible to do so otherwise.

Proton is the first provider to openly say it will defy the standard if it's introduced.

"Under no circumstances would we break end-to-end encryption," Mr. Yen said. "As other jurisdictions are realising, there is no such thing as technology that can scan everyone’s online activity while also providing privacy and safety.

“There is still time to safeguard end-to-end encryption in the eSafety proposals, and we urge Commissioner Inman Grant to ensure the protection of privacy for Australian citizens. Undermining cybersecurity and encryption in the name of eSafety will only lead to the opposite result, leaving everyone but criminals more at risk."

Proton AG is based in Switzerland, and says it is therefore subject only to Swiss law.

The legal and technical hurdles to enforcing cross-border regulations on entities that have no presence in the country imposing them have yet to be really tested.

While other tech companies have so far expressed disquiet with the proposals, many are moving to tighten encryption.

Telegram, which claims a user base of 200 million people, grew its market by being the first mass-market messaging service with end-to-end encryption, which is now the basis of its brand.

Meta attempted to win back market share for WhatsApp soon after it purchased it, by adding encryption, and has also pledged to work toward encryption and secure data storage across Facebook.

The company also announced the introduction of end-to-end encryption in Facebook Messenger, which is used by over a billion people. Online storage services such as iCloud and Google Cloud are also offering encrypted storage.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/exclusive-proton-mail-says-it-will-defy-australias-impending-online-safety-act-5545259

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Judge ridicules book-ban law so strict characters can't be identified as male or female

A judge’s ruling effectively ridiculed attempts to enforce a book-banning law in Iowa that he said was so strict it made using any pronouns — including his and hers — illegal.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher granted a preliminary injunction to the law Friday that bans library books that depict any sex acts and forbids teachers from discussing gender identity, NBC News reported.

The law had been signed last year by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds. It was meant to take effect on New Year’s Day.

But Locher wrote that it was far too broad.

“The underlying message is that there is no redeeming value to any such book even if it is a work of history, self-help guide, award-winning novel, or other piece of serious literature,” he wrote.

“In effect, the Legislature has imposed a puritanical ‘pall of orthodoxy’ over school libraries.”

He said he’d seen no evidence that the book had caused any “significant problems.”

And he said the law’s restrictions on gender identity were so broad that it forbade recognizing any gender or relationship — including straight ones.

“The statute is therefore content-neutral but so wildly overbroad that every school district and elementary school teacher in the State has likely been violating it since the day the school year started,” he wrote.

Characters couldn’t even be identified as male or female, “as any such discussion would, again, amount to promotion or instruction that relates to the person’s gender identity.”

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/judge-ridicules-book-ban-law-so-strict-characters-can-t-be-identified-as-male-or-female/ar-AA1mjNfq

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Wisconsin La Crosse chancellor unanimously fired after filming online porn videos with wife: ‘Abhorrent’

<i>Free speech?</i>

The University of Wisconsin chancellor who previously paid a porn star thousands of dollars to speak to students on campus was canned Wednesday — after it was revealed he films his own adult content with his wife and posts the X-rated videos online.

The Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents decided unanimously to fire longtime UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow, citing his “abhorrent” conduct in a vague statement.

“In recent days, we learned of specific conduct by Dr. Gow that has subjected the university to significant reputational harm. His actions were abhorrent,” UW president Jay Rothman said in a statement.

Gow — La Crosse’s second-longest-serving chancellor — appears in various online porn videos with his wife, Carmen Wilson, using “Sexy Happy Couple” as their public account name.

The films, which sometimes feature well-known porn stars, appear on sites like OnlyFans as well as Pornhub.

UW system regent president Karen Walsh accused Gow, 63, of showing a “reckless disregard for the role he was entrusted with.”

“We are alarmed, and disgusted, by his actions, which were wholly and undeniably inconsistent with his role as chancellor,” Walsh added.

As a tenured faculty member who has served as chancellor since 2007, Gow will be placed on paid administrative leave as he transitions into his faculty role.

However, Rothman said he filed a complaint Wednesday evening with interim Chancellor Betsy Morgan asking that Gow’s status as a tenured faculty member be reviewed.

An outside law firm has been hired “to undertake a fulsome investigation of the matter,” Rothman said.

The former chancellor claimed that although his face was shown in the videos, he never revealed any connections to his prestigious university position.

“There’s nothing said about the University of Wisconsin; there’s nothing said about the chancellor (on the videos),” Gow told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after his firing.

“So someone else would have to make those associations. And then someone would have to say those are problematic.”

He pointed out that no school funds were used to create the content, which explores consensual adult sexuality and falls within his right to free speech under the First Amendment, he said.

Gow also claimed he was not contacted ahead of the Wednesday meeting and questioned whether the board afforded him due process.

Earlier this month, Gow and his wife launched a YouTube cooking channel dubbed “Sexy Healthy Cooking” in which they invite adult film stars to cook vegan meals — occasionally ending with Gow and his wife walking suggestively offscreen with their guest.

Their X account more blatantly directs their followers to view their LoyalFans and OnlyFans sites “for fully explicit scenes.”

One of their videos features adult film legend Nina Hartley, who landed Gow in hot water in 2018 after he paid her $5,000 in discretionary La Crosse funds to give a 90-minute speech assuring students it’s “OK to like porn.”

https://nypost.com/2023/12/28/news/wisconsin-la-crosse-chancellor-joe-gow-fired-after-filming-porn-videos-with-wife/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

A blatant attempted breach of the 1st Amendent.  If enacted, it will rapidly be struck down in the courts

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6.

Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, wrote the bill and introduced it on Feb. 14. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, co-sponsored it. Wilson’s child identifies as transgender.

Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care.

AB 957 post-amendment “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” altering the definition and application of the entire California Family Code.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts.

Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.

Incredibly, the bill provides no definition whatsoever of what would qualify as “nonaffirming” to a child’s gender.

As Susannah Luthi of The Washington Free Beacon points out, “The bill makes no distinctions regarding the age of a child, how long a child has identified as transgender, or affirmation of social transition versus medical sex-change treatments.”

It remains unclear what law or precedent California courts would be able to cite in determining whether a parent was affirming—much less to define a standard that applies to all situations.

AB 957 isn’t Wiener’s first foray into legislating transgenderism for children. Last year, Wiener authored bill SB 107, making California the first state to establish itself as a sanctuary for minors’ transgender treatments and surgeries. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill into law in September.

In March, Advocates for Faith and Freedom sued Newsom’s administration in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division.

Parental rights advocates and experts lambasted Wiener’s amendment that would upend the California Family Code.

Jay Richards, the Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, calls AB 957 a “grotesque violation.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

While more and more European countries pound the breaks on ghoulish gender medicine for kids, California has decided to mandate it. They not only want to make sure that any child with discordant feelings toward his or her sexed body gets fast tracked to cross-sex hormones and sterilizing surgery, state Democrats want to go after parents who might otherwise hesitate. This is a grotesque violation of both children’s and parent’s rights. Decent Californians on the Left, Right, and center should be outraged.

Nicole Pearson, founder of the Facts Law Truth Justice law firm and civil rights advocacy group, condemned AB 957’s unconstitutionality in an interview with The Daily Signal:

This bill makes law that failure to affirm your child’s identity is child abuse. This will be a final, legal determination without any evidence in support, or a hearing with notice or the opportunity to be heard. Assemblywoman Wilson and Senator Scott Wiener are not doctors. They can’t make this determination for every single child aged 0 to 17 in the state and, yet, that is exactly what they’re trying to do here.

If a parent or guardian is unwilling or simply not ready to affirm their 7-year-old’s new identity—as they transition from Spongebob to Batman to Dora the Explorer—they can be found guilty of child abuse under AB-957 if it passes into law.

This is a horrifying bill for children, and for parents and guardians not just in California, but across the country. Gavin Newsom is gunning for president in 2028. If he signs this bill into law, here, it will be headed to every state if he wins.

AB 957 has a scheduled hearing in the State Senate on June 13 at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/09/california-bill-would-charge-any-parent-doesnt-affirm-transgenderism-child-abuse

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

A professor claimed he was “unlawfully dismissed” by the university over a social media post.

Professor Andrew Timming, who was sacked by RMIT University last week, said he would take the university to the Fair Work Commission, claiming he was bullied and unlawfully dismissed by the institution.

Prof Timming said his sacking came after a social media post he made in December 2022 weighing in on an exchange between controversial influencer Andrew Tate and climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Tate posted a tweet taunting Thunberg with a picture of himself in front of his Bugatti vehicle, boasting about his 33 cars and asking for her email address so he could send “a complete list of … their respective enormous emissions.”

Thunberg responded: “Yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalld--kenergy@getalife.com”.

Prof Timming questioned why Thunberg had received praise for the remark.

“Demeaning sexual jokes when directed from a woman to a man – smiley face, wink face. Demeaning sexual jokes when directed from a man to a woman – bomb emoji, skull and crossbones emoji,” Prof Timming tweeted.

Prof Timming alleges he was reprimand over the tweet, then suffered “vicious bullying” at the university, leading him to lodge a grievance complaint in May.

A month later, RMIT allegedly placed him on extended leave and tried to terminate his contract on the grounds of ill health.

Prof Timming said his doctor and an independent medical expert appointed by the university said he was fit to return to work and he did so immediately.

He claims he was later stood down for not undertaking extra teaching, which he claims he never agreed to do.

Prof Timming told the Herald Sun he hoped the university would ensure “procedural fairness” during the Fair Work Commission appeal process so he could “put all this nonsense behind (him)”.

The former Human Resource Management professor said he was terminated from his job three days before Christmas.

“I was called into a meeting and I was informed I would be dismissed that same day,” he said.

“I was given the opportunity to comment … but after 15 minutes of deliberation they said I was dismissed immediately.”

Prof Timming said while the decision was a difficult one to hear, he had spent the previous six months preparing for it.

“It has been extremely stressful, but I knew it was coming,” he said, noting previous issues he had with the university.

“Ultimately my message to the university is that the rule of law must prevail and procedural fairness must prevail and I have a right to appeal.”

RMIT declined to comment on Mr Timming’s case as it doesn’t respond to individual staff matters.

The petition on website ActionButton is calling on RMIT’s vice chancellor to uphold Prof Timming's appeal against his dismissal, restore academic freedom and respect workplace rights.

“Prof Timming’s tweet was a commentary on the double standard when it comes to men sexually harassing women versus women sexually harassing men,” the petition said.

“After being threatened with disciplinary action over the tweet and bullied, he lodged a grievance alleging the RMIT violated his rights to academic free speech.

“Following his complaint, he was subjected to intense bullying and adverse action aimed at constructive dismissal,” the petition states.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/victoria-education/rmit-professor-andrew-timming-to-lodge-action-with-fair-work-over-unfair-dismissal/news-story/58ad83a9e27e465ba346eb2d818f8d0a

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Politically correct censorship

Despite the long history of scientific censorship and its current prevalence, the mechanisms by which censorship operates, the agents who impose censorship and their motives, and the ultimate costs of censorship have not been systematically investigated. A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Cory Clark and 38 co-authors, Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda (Clark et al. 2023), takes a stab at this issue. The paper lays out important questions regarding the nature and consequences of censorship and puts out a call for systematic research on the subject.

One of the paper’s co-authors, psychology professor Steve Stewart-Williams, summarizes the evidence for the current wave of scientific censorship and self-censorship, as well as the rise of censorious attitudes among scientists, which motivated the paper:

* Increasing numbers of scientists report being sanctioned for conducting politically contentious research.
Retractions of papers have become more and more common over the last decade, and at least some of these appear to have been driven primarily by concerns other than scientific merit. One group of scholars even retracted their own paper, not because it was scientifically flawed, but because it was being cited by conservatives in ways the authors didn’t approve of.

* Several lines of research suggest that studies reaching politically unpalatable conclusions may have a harder time negotiating the peer-review process than they would if the conclusions were in the opposite direction. As the paper notes, “When scholars misattribute their rejection of disfavored conclusions to quality concerns that they do not consistently apply, bias and censorship are masquerading as scientific rejection.”

* Recent surveys suggest that many academics support censuring or censoring controversial research, with support being strongest among younger scholars.
Unsurprisingly, recent polls also suggest that many academics now self-censor on even mildly controversial topics.

* A large number of academics express a willingness to discriminate against conservatives when it comes to hiring, publications, grants, and promotions. Unsurprisingly, conservative scholars are particularly likely to self-censor.

*A growing number of journals have explicitly committed to judging scientific papers not just on the quality of the research but also on their (supposed) social or political impact. “In effect,” note Clark et al., “editors are granting themselves vast leeway to censor high-quality research that offends their own moral sensibilities.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/12/24/censorship-in-science-a-compilation-of-references/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Harvard Crimson refuses to publish my letter critical of President Claudine Gay

Alan Dershowitz (below)is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School

The paper published an article Dec. 12 by law Professor Charles Fried providing a legalistic defense of her claim that those who call for genocide against Jews cannot be disciplined without considering “the context.”

Here’s my response:

The problem with Charles Fried’s defense of President Gay’s “context matters” statement is he fails to acknowledge that for Gay context apparently matters only for genocidal threats against Jews.

Context does not matter for microaggressions against blacks, gays and other minorities protected by the diversity, equity, inclusion bureaucracy that she has long championed.

Under the DEI regime, admissions have been withdrawn, lectures canceled and students admonished — at Harvard, Penn, MIT and other universities — for their speech without regard to the context in which they were said.

Fried fails to see the broader context of the double standard employed by so many universities — including Harvard — against Jews and other minorities that are excluded by DEI.

Yes, context matters, and in this broader context Gay was wrong to brag to Congress about Harvard’s commitment to free expression without also telling it that Harvard’s selective application of free-speech standards earned it a last-place rating for free speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

It is in that context that Gay’s new and selective double standard for protecting the free speech of Jew-haters should be evaluated.

It is to be hoped that Gay’s new contextual standard will in the future be universally applied to all speech at Harvard and the DEI bureaucracy will henceforth be denied the power to censor and cancel expression that is directed against protected minorities.

Despite my forward-looking and positive conclusion, the editorial board wrote that it is “not interested in publishing it.”

I think this is the first time in my 65 years of writing letters to the editor that one has been turned down.

And this one is from a professor who has been on the Harvard faculty for 60 years and has published numerous articles and letters in the Crimson.

It’s a telling irony the paper that reassured its readers “Free speech is the guiding principle of this Editorial Board” refuses to publish a letter calling for less censorship and viewpoint discrimination on campus.

That reflects Harvard’s double-standard approach to free speech: contextual free speech for the enemies of Jews and their state; censorship for supporters of Israel and critics of Harvard.

By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, the paper didn’t deny my free speech.

It denied Crimson readers’ right to hear all sides of a controversial issue — because the Crimson decided to shut down the marketplace of ideas.

When the media refuse to publish legitimate criticism of the institution they cover, the checks on the biases of that institution are weakened.

In light of this pervasive double standard, it’s not surprising so many Jewish students feel that Harvard does not value and protect them.

In recent years, the Crimson has become the megaphone for anti-Israel and antisemitic extremism on campus.

It’s also become the censor of pro-Israel and balanced views.

Last year, for instance, the Crimson’s editorial board called for support for the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement against Israel.

In its editorial, the paper explicitly distanced itself from a 2002 editorial that called divestment too blunt of a tool and the comparison to South African apartheid offensive: “In the past, our board was skeptical of the movement (if not, generally speaking, of its goals), arguing that BDS as a whole did not ‘get at the nuances and particularities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.’ We regret and reject that view. It is our categorical imperative to side with and empower the vulnerable and oppressed.”

It then goes on to paint a false picture that pro-Palestinian viewpoints are being suppressed on campus.

The Crimson of today writes, “We have a certain community-wide tendency to dismiss opposing views as inherently offensive and unworthy, straw-manning legitimate arguments and obfuscating difficult but necessary discussions. Yet civil discourse and debate, even when trying, are fundamental steps towards a better reality.”

But it does not apply these standards when it comes to Jews.

Harvard students, faculty and other readers should make their voices heard in the name of veritas and the open marketplace of ideas.

Competing Harvard newspapers and media should be established to ensure all reasonable views can be heard.

The Crimson is part of the problem of growing antisemitism at Harvard. It does not serve the Harvard community well in this time of deep divisions and hate.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/21/opinion/the-harvard-crimson-refuses-to-publish-my-letter-critical-of-president-claudine-gay/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Barring speakers under u.s. sanctions puts ideas off-limits, say free speech advocates

Can the U.S. government control the speech that an American organization sponsors in another country?

A LAWSUIT FILED Wednesday says the U.S. government violated the First Amendment when it prevented a U.S.-based organization from hosting people sanctioned by the U.S. as speakers at a conference earlier this year. The suit, if successful, could have far-reaching implications for placing federal limits on freedom of speech when sanctioned or otherwise designated people or groups are involved.

The complaint Opens in a new tab, filed by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, argues that the decision made by the Office of Foreign Assets Control could have consequences for public discourse, including whether news outlets could publish interviews with individuals designated under U.S. sanctions law.

For the lawyers bringing the suit, the current curtailment of speech based on sanctions amounts to the policing of thought.

“The question at the core of the case is what control the U.S. government has over the American mind and whether it can effectively insulate Americans from ideas and people who it decides are off-limits,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight Institute. “That is an extraordinarily dangerous authority.”

In January, the Foundation for Global Political Exchange, a U.S. nonprofit that organizes small-group discussions across the political spectrum in the Middle East, held an event in Beirut aimed at fostering political dialogue about Lebanon.

The Foundation sought to include five influential political figures in Lebanon who were either sanctioned by the U.S. government or were members of a designated organization. Two of the potential speakers were members of the Lebanese Parliament, one was a senior representative of the sanctioned Palestinian militant group Hamas, and two others were members of Hezbollah, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization but remains a major political party within Lebanon.

Out of prudence, the Foundation informed OFAC, the agency that regulates sanctions, that some of the participants were on the sanctions list or affiliated with sanctioned groups. The agency was categorical in its response: Any event held by Americans with designated individuals was prohibited and risked civil or criminal penalties. OFAC claimed that inviting any of the five people — even those who were members of sanctioned organizations but not themselves listed as individuals — would violate the law by giving them “a platform for them to speak” that would provide a “service,” according to the lawsuit. (OFAC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

The lawsuit argues that OFAC has no legal authority to prevent Americans from engaging in conversation with people on the sanctions list. The Foundation’s event was specifically protected by legal and regulatory exemptions on the exchange of information and ideas, it claims.

“OFAC is assuming the authority to control whom Americans get to hear from and by extension what views Americans hold,” Anna Diakun, a staff attorney at the Knight Institute, told The Intercept. “But the public gets to decide for itself which ideas to credit and which ones to reject. That is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.”

https://theintercept.com/2023/12/20/sanctions-first-amendment-free-speech/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Dangers of Curtailing Free Speech on Campus

The answer to surging antisemitism on campus is not to curtail free speech. Anguish over mounting anti-Jewish sentiment, and the seemingly ad hoc scramble of American universities to define their duties toward targeted students, is understandable. But in a pluralistic society predicated on the right to speak, antisemitism cannot be eliminated by banning or punishing noxious sentiment. Too many university administrators, Members of Congress, and other influentials mistakenly believe that, when it comes to hateful speech, the choices are to prohibit it outright or instead let its pollution seep freely through communities. That is a false choice. Antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, must be unequivocally repudiated and countered. But the U.S. Constitution and our private universities’ commitments to free expression and academic freedom demand that the tools to accomplish this goal respect rather than restrict speech.

The recent surge in antisemitism on campus and in the wider society is alarming. While various forms of bigotry – including anti-Palestinian and Islamophobia are also surging – incidents of antisemitism are at a record high. The main threats come not from speech but from actions: violence and violent threats against Jews; disruptions of classes or talks; vandalism; and ideological litmus tests being applied in classrooms. Commonplace slogans can be interpreted as annihilationist. The tearing down of hostage posters, including those depicting the elderly and children, send a message that innocent Jewish lives don’t matter.

The menacing of Jews has uncorked fear that age-old hatreds were only dormant, lying in wait. Campus norms have evolved to shield other marginalized groups and bring about a more inclusive campus. Over the last decade, campus communities have rightly become sensitized to racial slurs, stereotypes, and microaggressions that can stoke feelings of exclusion.

Even five years ago, reference to the n-word was not unheard of in the college classroom; whether in a quote from literature or illustrate a legal doctrine. In recent years instructors were put on notice that the word, regardless of intent and context, was widely considered deeply offensive. Once alerted, many voluntarily refrained from its use, not wanting to stoke tension or hard feelings.

The use of preferred gender pronouns has also come to be more widely accepted on the basis that people deserve a choice in how they are identified and described. We have begun to adapt to the premise that living together in a diverse, pluralistic society demands a measure of respect for individual difference, even when that extends to what we do or don’t say. When it comes to language that can be code for genocide or play on antisemitic stereotypes, Jewish students are now drawing attention to how words may land.

For the most part, though, these expectations have been enforced not through rules and punishments but with informal taboos and spreading awareness of heterogeneity and the need to avoid gratuitous offense. Some free speech defenders have rightly pointed out that while increased conscientiousness of difference may be good in theory, it can readily cross over into a climate of censoriousness in which topics such as affirmative action, immigration, or care for transgender youth become too risky to discuss.

The problem intensifies when unofficial awareness raising hardens into institutional mandates policing speech. Formal prohibitions can foster grievances among those who believe that open debate – and specifically their own dissenting opinions - are being muzzled.

Universities have exacted reprisals against students and professors for voicing provocative or offensive views and sought to suspend students organizations that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. Yet recent experience attests to the futility of trying to subdue bigotry by quashing speech: official prohibitions are inevitably subject to interpretation and charges of hypocrisy; those who believe their ideas are disfavored become aggrieved and resentful, sometimes grandstanding their way into even more clout; and chilling effects unavoidably reach beyond the narrow parameters of enumerated speech restrictions.

https://time.com/6548051/6548051/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

It isn’t free speech that causes violence – it’s censorship

So it is now against the law in Denmark to treat the Koran ‘improperly’. Anyone who inflicts ‘inappropriate treatment’ on a copy of Islam’s holy book – whether by stomping on it, ripping it to shreds or setting it on fire – could be fined or even jailed for two years. This is a travesty for liberty. It is a stain on the good name of Scandinavia. Denmark joins Iran, Afghanistan and other theocratic tyrannies as a nation where you might be made to rot in a cell simply for insulting a religion.

The new law, passed on Thursday, doesn’t specifically mention the Koran. Instead it makes it a crime to ‘inappropriately treat, publicly or with the intention of dissemination in a wider circle, a writing with significant religious significance for a religious community’. But we all know what ‘writing’ is being referred to here. We all know it isn’t fiery abuse of L Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics or Buddhism’s Tripitaka scriptures that the Danish state is worried about. It’s Koran-burning. The justice minister was candid. ‘Koran-burnings must be stopped’, he said on Instagram the day the law was passed. Ignore the law’s slippery chat about protecting all sacred texts from violation – this is a law expressly designed to shield Islam from blasphemy.

Denmark and Sweden have witnessed numerous Koran-burnings recently. Far-right agitators as well as ex-Muslims have set fire to copies in Copenhagen, Stockholm and elsewhere. And the reaction from Muslim-majority nations has been ferocious. There were angry protests in Baghdad. Iran summoned Danish and Swedish diplomats in Tehran to give them a dressing down. Turkey threatened to block Sweden’s entry to NATO until it showed ‘respect to [Muslims’] religious beliefs’. In short, bow to our faith or you will be punished. Take the knee to our ideology or suffer the consequences.

Now, Denmark has capitulated. It has sought to appease the muftis and mobs of distant regimes by forbidding the desecration of their holy texts. It has restricted the liberty of its own citizens to placate theocrats in other lands. The more you think about it, the more surreal it gets. It’s almost like a soft colonisation, with Denmark meekly introducing the blasphemy laws of nations like Iran to try to avoid further protest and rebuke. ‘This law is introduced out of necessity, not out of desire’, said one Danish politician, speaking to the spineless nature of what Denmark has done – namely, mimicked the intolerance of its critics in the hope they will now leave it alone.

Yet if Denmark does win brief respite from Islamist bullying, it will have done so at a staggeringly high price: freedom itself. For make no mistake, outlawing the burning of the Koran is a flagrant assault on free expression. Personally, I never like to see a book on fire. One cannot help but think of the bleakest decades of the 20th century when a match is put to a book. But freedom of speech must include the freedom to blaspheme. To mock gods, prophets, bibles. To lampoon Muhammad, put a likeness of Christ in piss. To call bullshit on anything and everything. Yes, some will feel offended, but that’s an infinitesimally small price to pay for the preservation of everyone else’s right to think and speak as they see fit. Free speech is not just for the erudite but also for the impolitic, the cantankerous, the wind-up merchants. Outlawing Koran-burning should offend us as profoundly as outlawing the writing of poetry would – in both cases the liberty to utter is restricted.

Few, I know, will feel sympathy for hard-right troublemakers who’ll no longer be able to burn a Koran in Denmark. But what about ex-Muslims, or ‘apostates’, as Islamic states call them? Some of the Koran-burnings in Scandinavia have been carried out by immigrants from Muslim lands who’ve abandoned their Islamic faith. They feel fury towards a religion they now consider unjust and unfair. If Denmark imprisons an ‘apostate’ for publicly desecrating the Koran, it will be no better than Iran, where apostasy is likewise punishable by jail. Iranian dissidents might once have looked to a nation like Denmark for refuge. No longer. Now they know they risk severe punishment there, too, if they demean Islam’s holy text. For shame.

The enormity of what Denmark has done was summed up by Nina Palesa Bonde, a deputy judge in the Copenhagen District Court and one of hundreds of Danish intellectuals to sound the alarm about the new law. ‘Normally, the law protects people, not religion, ideology or God himself’, she said. Indeed. Six years ago, Denmark ditched its 334-year-old blasphemy law on the basis that ‘religion should not dictate what is allowed and what is forbidden to say publicly’. Yet now it has resurrected blasphemy law in the sneaky language of political correctness. Once again, religion – well, Islam – is dictating what may and may not be said. We are protecting in law a book that is ‘used as a death sentence for women, Jews and homosexuals in many countries’, said Ms Bonde. If that doesn’t give Danes pause for thought, nothing will.

One of the key arguments made by the officials who pushed through this medieval law in woke garb is that Denmark must do everything it can to protect itself from violence. This law is necessary because ‘the terrorist threat level against Denmark is alarmingly high’, said one politician. That is a horrifying thing to say. It essentially grants terrorists a veto over liberty, law itself, in the state of Denmark. It offers up Denmark’s longstanding principle of free expression as a bargaining chip with terrorists. It says, ‘If we ban blasphemy, if we jail those who offend you, will you let us live in peace?’. This isn’t only cowardly – it’s dangerous. It sends a signal to terrorists that threats work, violence works. Threaten the nations of Europe and they will abandon their principles, including freedom.

This does the opposite of pacifying the violent – it emboldens them. It gives them an almost despotic power over the laws and rights of a free nation. It moulds Denmark around their reactionary beliefs rather than around the freeborn rights of the Danish people. In fact, it’s an incitement to violence. Denmark’s ruling class says burning a Koran incites violence, but their horrific new law is far more likely to do that. For it communicates to every Islamist on Earth that if you want concessions from Denmark, if you want this once proud nation to jettison its principles and beliefs, if you want it to reinstate the blasphemy laws it only recently demolished – only this time to protect Islam rather than Christianity – then all you need to do is threaten it with violence. ‘Terrorism works’ – that’s what Denmark has said to the world.

Here we can glimpse an eternal truth of censorship: it is the midwife of violence. So often today we’re told that free speech causes violence. That the utterance of offensive ideas is likely to whip up mobs. In truth, censorship is a far more comfortable bedfellow of savagery than freedom could ever be. For censorship tells certain groups that their beliefs are so perfect, so pristine, so beyond the scurrilous commentary of mere mortals, that those who dissent from them are deserving of punishment. Censorship begets intolerance. In forcefielding certain ideologies from criticism, it incites the adherents to those ideologies to seek out and ‘discipline’ the filth that dare to dissent.

Consider the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the beheading of Samuel Paty, or the stabbing of Salman Rushie. The problem in those cases was not the freely uttered views of the attacked but the violent sensitivities of their attackers. The problem was not Charlie Hebdo’s, Monsieur Paty’s and Mr Rushdie’s expectation of freedom, but their tormentors’ expectation of protection from offence. The apocalyptic violence of those attacks sprung not from the principle of free expression but from censorship’s depraved incitement to intolerance, its instilling in people’s minds of the backward idea that anyone who offends them deserves punishment. It wasn’t freedom of speech that drove the knife into Rushdie’s face and neck – it was a man’s lust for censorship.

Denmark has, in effect, hung a target sign around the necks of those who ‘blaspheme’ against the Koran. It has said they are such wicked people that they might even have to be imprisoned. It will not be able to feign shock if other elements in Denmark, and elsewhere in Europe, decide that harsher punishment might sometimes be required. Maybe even violent punishment. Pity the ‘apostates’ and dissenters – they always lose when censorship wins.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/09/it-isnt-free-speech-that-causes-violence-its-censorship/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Irish Legislation Targeting Free Speech

Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance sent a letter Tuesday to Irish Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason expressing strong concerns about legislation that would undermine Irish citizens’ freedom of speech.

Vance’s letter, first obtained by The Daily Signal, references the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which is supported by Irish politicians such as Sen. Pauline O’Reilly, who is in the country’s Green Party.

“We are restricting freedom but we’re doing it for the common good,” O’Reilly said in viral remarks earlier this year as she discussed the legislation. “Yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.”

The Ohio Republican warns that this Irish bill is “full of vague prohibitions that would chill important public debate if they were to become law, particularly with respect to the most controversial and publicly significant matters.”

“Given that President de Valera himself was imprisoned for sedition in 1918, I urge your government to consider the impact of this legislation on Ireland’s proud tradition of free speech,” Vance wrote.

The proposed Irish legislation would criminalize “behav[ing] in a public place in a manner … that is likely to incite … hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics [while] being reckless as to whether … hatred is thereby incited,” as Vance pointed out.

“What on earth does that mean?” questioned the senator. “Would the prohibition include ‘recklessly’ attributing social ills, like crime, to increased immigration to Ireland? Would it include ‘recklessly’ affirming that gender is biologically determined and that there are only two genders, male and female?”

“Even if a court would not interpret the law to prohibit that sort of activity, Irish citizens could be forgiven for thinking that it does,” he said. “And if those citizens self-censor to protect themselves from prosecution, Ireland will be robbed of the meaningful public discourse that all democracies need.”

Vance pointed out that the United States “routinely condemns” censorious conduct from countries like China, Iran, or Myanmar, noting that the State Department just imposed visa restrictions on Iranian government officials who are suspected to have been involved in censoring the rights of peaceful protesters.

“I am alarmed that one of our closest friends, a democracy dedicated to upholding cherished freedoms, should undertake such legislation,” the senator said. He concluded the letter by calling upon the Irish ambassador to explain whether the legislation would be consistent with Ireland’s treaty obligations and whether the bill would be applicable to all classes of foreign visitors to Ireland, including U.S. government officials.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/12/exclusive-vance-slams-irish-legislation-targeting-free-speech

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Elon Musk SLAMS Microsoft Word's inclusiveness checker as it prompts him to reconsider using the word 'insane'

Even word processors aren't safe from Elon Musk's war on wokeness.

The X (formerly Twitter) CEO took to social media to slam Microsoft Word's inclusiveness checker.

Musk complained that he had been 'scolded' for using the word 'insane' in a document.

His supporters took to X to vent against the 'woke' work processor with some joking that it was Microsoft which had gone insane.

Another supporter wrote that 'wokeism has literally infiltrated everything on this planet'.

Musk's ire was drawn by a suggestion provided by Microsoft Word's inclusiveness spell check feature.

While trying to write that a vehicle, presumable the Cybertruck, has 'insane stability' Microsoft noted that 'this term implies mental health bias'.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk wrote: 'Microsoft World now scolds you if you use words that aren't "inclusive"!'

Musk's supporters joined the X CEO in an outpouring of rage against the program's interference.   'MS Word is going woke', wrote one angry commenter.  'They really putting the Soft in Microsoft', joked another.

Meanwhile, one commenter poked fun at the suggestion, writing: 'That's insane'.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12867925/Elon-Musk-SLAMS-Microsoft-Words-inclusiveness-checker-prompts-reconsider-using-word-insane-fans-vent-wokeism-literally-infiltrated-planet.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Princeton punished me for fighting to fix DEI and antisemitism on campus

If the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mean anything, it’s that hatred is unacceptable no matter what form it takes.

Yet the past two months have made clear to me that institutional DEI tolerates — and thereby encourages — the particularly awful hatred of antisemitism.

What else could explain what’s happening at Princeton University?

Nothing prepared me for Oct. 7.  I stayed up all night watching the horror Hamas terrorists were perpetrating in real time.

The next day, my family was in anguish, and my friends were devastated, especially those with loved ones in Israel.

Nothing prepared me for the days and weeks that came after, either.

I made the mistake of logging onto X and our Graduate Student Government Slack channel.  While I always knew antisemitism found a home in higher education, I still expected my peers to express shock and sympathy — the natural response to obvious evil.

Instead, I found an explosion of Jew-hatred, mere days after Israelis were slaughtered, burned, kidnapped and raped.

The comments were as heinous as they were numerous.

Some particularly disturbing examples: “They called Nelson Mandela a terrorist too”; “Jews have naturally developed something of a victim complex”; “you know you’re the one . . . committing terrorism, killing innocent people on a daily basis” to a professor and alumnus who served in the Israel Defense Forces; “you’re a racist who would love to see as many Palestinians dead as possible”; “What was your body count today? . . . did you end up orphaning more than twenty children today alone?”; and “Respecting people’s heritage” means “standing in solidarity with the oppressed as they resist the oppressor.”

That one came Oct. 7, before Hamas had finished its murder spree.

At first, I felt sick — a combination of shock, anger, grief and disgust rolled into one.

After I calmed down, I felt resolved. I compiled a list of the most horrific comments and sent them Oct. 18 to Princeton’s DEI office.  I asked it to discipline Princeton students spreading hate.

I got a response Nov. 7: It would take no action because the comments “constitute political (and therefore protected) speech.”

I could understand that reasoning, despite the naked hypocrisy of Princeton faculty members having been previously disciplined for speech.

But what happened next was far more baffling.  I asked the DEI office to meet with me — not to discuss the report I made but rather the problem of antisemitism more broadly.

I hoped we could devise a plan to combat this hatred in Princeton’s student body.

The DEI office’s response was swift and simple: No because “campus community members are not entitled to personal meetings.”

I kept trying, including by getting more influential members of the Princeton community to reiterate my request.

But the DEI office held firm, even as antisemitism became prominent amid campus protests, walkouts and everyday interactions.

To this day, the DEI office has not met with me, though I have been punished for pushing back on antisemitism in the Slack channel.

A student obtained a “no communication order” against me.

For subsequently “liking” with a green-check emoji a Slack message a friend wrote replying to that student with some facts, I was put on disciplinary probation Wednesday, “the most serious admonition a student can receive while being permitted to remain at the University.”

The Graduate Student Government also temporarily suspended my Slack account for “stigmatization of mental health and religious affiliation,” according to a newly updated code of conduct.

I had tried to explain particular drivers of antisemitism by drawing on my own psychological training and discussing religious fundamentalism in general.

DEI ideology has been weaponized against me — and Jews more broadly, as groups like Do No Harm have documented across higher education.

I should have known. For all its talk about justice and the importance of oppressed lives, DEI cares about neither — at least, not in a consistent or holistic way.

It divides groups of people based on superficial characteristics, then assumes they can do no right or do no wrong depending on their identity and relationship to other groups.

Jews, it turns out, are forever damned, deserving no support when victimized.

If silence is violence, then silence about antisemitism at Princeton is driving ongoing calls for violence against Jews.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/13/opinion/princeton-punished-me-for-fighting-to-fix-dei-and-antisemitism-on-campus/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

$290 Million Class Action Lawsuit Against Freedom Convoy Participants Created to Silence Expression, Lawyers Argue

A lawsuit filed by a group of Ottawa residents against participants of the Freedom Convoy is designed to silence expression, lawyers for the defendants say.

The class action litigation, filed by Ottawa resident Zexi Li and others, seeks $290 million in damages, saying the protestors caused a nuisance and led to psychological distress as well as a loss of income due to business closures in downtown Ottawa.

The lawsuit has also named citizens who donated to the protest, according to a news release by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), who are supporting legal representation for the defendants.

Lawyers for defendants Tamara Lich, Chris Barber, and others will be in court on Dec. 14 to try and have the case tossed out. They say it is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), or a lawsuit brought to try and silence opponents.

“Zexi Li’s lawsuit engages the very purpose that ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation was designed to address: an attempt to silence peaceful expression, and the right of defendants to participate in public debate,” lawyer James Manson said in the release.

The defendants’ attorneys argue the lawsuit relates to the defendant’s expression, which includes those who donated to the Freedom Convoy.

“Donating to and participating in the Freedom Convoy amounted to an expression of support for the protest, and of disagreement with the Government of Canada’s response to Covid—matters of public interest,” JCCF said.

They also say that the defendants have valid defences and “the value of the expression at issue outweighs the allegations of nuisance against them.”

JCCF said that after an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the defendant must demonstrate that the lawsuit against them arises from their expression and relates to a matter of public interest.

"If the defendant can demonstrate that their expression does relate to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that their lawsuit has ‘substantial merit’ and that the defendant has no valid defence.”

The group behind the lawsuit has started a website where they say they are seeking compensation for “serious harms and losses” that residents, businesses, and workers in Ottawa experienced.

“The non-stop blaring horns, diesel fumes, unexpected fireworks, and loud sound systems blasting music have caused the residents unbearable torment in the sanctity of their own homes,” the site says.

“Canada is a free and democratic society with a long tradition of peaceful protest and assemblies. The Defendants have abused those freedoms to cause serious harm to others, innocent bystanders to the Defendants’ pursuit of their misguided political goals.”

In testimony given in court in October, Ms. Li said the protest made life difficult.
"It was difficult to live as a human being," she testified.

Ms. Li was granted an injunction against the horn-honking during the demonstration, according to The Canadian Press.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/290-million-class-action-lawsuit-against-freedom-convoy-participants-created-to-silence-expression-lawyers-say-5545903

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************