Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Floyd Abrams: “On the Front Lines with the First Amendment”
Floyd Abrams, described as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age,” interviewed by Ron Collins at the 2014 Virginia Festival of the Book. Ho…

By: Thomas Jefferson Center

Read the original post:
Floyd Abrams: "On the Front Lines with the First Amendment" – Video

Floyd Abrams Discusses Free Speech – 2014 Va. Festival of the Book
In a panel discussion about freedom of speech sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and moderated by the center's di…

By: Rick Sincere

Read more from the original source:
Floyd Abrams Discusses Free Speech – 2014 Va. Festival of the Book – Video

On the Front Lines with the First Amendment
Virginia Festival of the Book 2014 – Floyd Abrams, described as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age,” author of Friend of the Court: On t…

By: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities

Go here to see the original:
On the Front Lines with the First Amendment – Video

Over the years weve seen a lot of different SEO tactics resulting from Googles constant and unwavering algorithm updates. From link building to guest blogging, a lot of different practices have been born in search of improved search rankings, including the topic of discussion in this interview, negative SEO. Negative SEO has received quite a bit of attention since Googles Penguin update and continues to be a hot topic throughout the search industry, so we wanted to get some expert insights as to what negative SEO really is, whether or not its effective, and if you should be worried.

In a recent interview from the Airbnb SEO Meetup in San Francisco, Murray Newlands and Joe Sinkwitz from CopyPress talk all things negative SEO and its impact on Googles search results.

To find out more, watch the full interview below:

Here are the key takeaways from the video:

Please visit SEJsYouTube pagefor more video interviews.

Murray founded The Mail in 2013, an angel-funded startup publication covering performance marketing and mobile marketing. Murray is an advisor to a number of bay area startups including VigLink. In 2011 Wiley published his book Online Marketing: A User’s Manual. Born in England, Murray moved to the USA in 2011 being recognized by the US government as “an alien of extraordinary ability”.

Airbnb SEO Meetup #Interview: Negative SEO and Its Impact on Google Search Results by @murraynewlands

Mar 242014

A Transhuman or trans-human is an intermediary form between the human and the hypothetical posthuman.

The etymology of the term “transhuman” goes back to French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who wrote in his 1949 book The Future of Mankind: Liberty: that is to say, the chance offered to every man (by removing obstacles and placing the appropriate means at his disposal) of ‘trans-humanizing’ himself by developing his potentialities to the fullest extent.

And in a 1951 unpublished revision of the same book: In consequence one is the less disposed to reject as unscientific the idea that the critical point of planetary Reflection, the fruit of socialization, far from being a mere spark in the darkness, represents our passage, by Translation or dematerialization, to another sphere of the Universe: not an ending of the ultra-human but its accession to some sort of trans-humanity at the ultimate heart of things.

In 1957 book New Bottles for New Wine, English evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote: The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature. “I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny. One of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, used “transhuman” as shorthand for “transitional human”. Calling transhumans the “earliest manifestation of new evolutionary beings”, FM argued that signs of transhumans included physical and mental augmentations including prostheses, reconstructive surgery, intensive use of telecommunications, a cosmopolitan outlook and a globetrotting lifestyle, androgyny, mediated reproduction (such as in vitro fertilisation), absence of religious beliefs, and a rejection of traditional family values.

FM-2030 used the concept of transhuman, as an evolutionary transition, outside the confines of academia in his contributing final chapter to the 1972 anthology Woman, Year 2000. In the same year, American cryonics pioneer Robert Ettinger contributed to conceptualization of “transhumanity” in his book Man into Superman. In 1982, American artist Natasha Vita-More authored the Transhuman Manifesto 1982: Transhumanist Arts Statement and outlined what she perceived as an emerging transhuman culture.

Many thinkers today do not consider FM-2030′s characteristics to be essential attributes of a transhuman. However, analyzing the possible transitional nature of the human species has been and continues to be of primary interest to anthropologists and philosophers within and outside the intellectual movement of transhumanism.

In March 2007, American physicist Gregory Cochran and paleoanthropologist John Hawks published a study, alongside other recent research on which it builds, which amounts to a radical reappraisal of traditional views, which tended to assume that humans have reached an evolutionary endpoint. Physical anthropologist Jeffrey McKee argued the new findings of accelerated evolution bear out predictions he made in a 2000 book The Riddled Chain. Based on computer models, he argued that evolution should speed up as a population grows because population growth creates more opportunities for new mutations; and the expanded population occupies new environmental niches, which would drive evolution in new directions. Whatever the implications of the recent findings, McKee concludes that they highlight a ubiquitous point about evolution: “every species is a transitional species.”

You can find discussions about everything related to this wiki on Snafu Comics Wiki Forum!

See the original post here:
Transhuman – Snafu Comics Wiki

Compiled by Nick Bensen Marin Independent Journal

Chris Columbus discusses ‘House of Secrets: Battle of the Beasts’ at 10 a.m. March 21 at Book Passage in Corte Madera. Courtesy of Book Passage


ART BY THE BAY WEEKEND GALLERY 18856 Highway 1, Marshall; 663-1006; artbythebay 3 p.m. March 23: “Painting, Poetry and Stories” with Jon Langdon and Rebecca Foust.

BOOK PASSAGE 51 Tamal Vista Blvd., Corte Madera; 927-0960; 4 p.m. March 16: Chris Pavone discusses “The Accident.” 7 p.m. March 16: Lisa Osina discusses “A Wolf Song.” 6 p.m. March 17: Sarah Mlynowski discusses “Don’t Even Think About It.” 7 p.m. March 17: Phil Klay discusses “Redeployment.” 7 p.m. March 18: Simon Schama discusses “The Story of the Jews.” 7 p.m. March 19: Cara Black discusses “Murder in Pigalle” and Libby Fischer Hellmann discusses “Havana Lost.” 7 p.m. March 20: Susan Katz Miller discusses “Being Both.” 10 a.m. March 21: Chris Columbus discusses “House of Secrets: Battle of the Beasts.” 6 p.m. March 21: Phil Bildner, LeYuen Pham and Kevin Lewis discuss “The Soccer Fence.” 7 p.m. March 21: Peter Stark discusses “Astoria.” 1 p.m. March 22: David Richo discusses “How to Be an Adult in Love.” 4 p.m. March 22: Ted Chu discusses “Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential.” 7 p.m. March 22: Jenny Bowen discusses “Wish You Happy Forever.” 1 p.m. March 23: Charles Durrett discusses “The Senior Cohousing Handbook.” 4 p.m. March 23: Bill Amatneek discusses “Acoustic Stories.” 7 p.m. March 23: Rivvy Neshama discusses “Recipes for a Sacred Life.”

CAFE ARRIVEDERCI 11 G St., San Rafael; 492-8870. 5:30 p.m. March 17: salon with storyteller Angar Mora and artist Jennifer Bundey. $10.

DANCE PALACE 503 B St., Point Reyes Station; 663-1075; 663-1542;; 2 p.m. March 16: “Mother Ireland: An Afternoon of Irish Poetry, Storytelling and Song.” $10.

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE CENTER 3270 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael; 457-4554; 460-1912; 2:30 to 5 p.m. Fridays: Write On! creative writing workshop with Robert-Harry Rovin.

FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER 1408 Mission Ave., San Rafael; 485-3328; www.falkirkcultural; www.marinpoetrycenter .org. 7:30 p.m. March 20: Marin Poetry Center reading with Ellen Bass and Andrea Hollander. $3 to $5.

PERI’S SILVER DOLLAR BAR 29 Broadway Blvd., Fairfax; 459-9910;; 6 p.m. March 18: Tuesday Night Writers’ Pints & Prose reading with Clive Matson and Sarah Griff.

View original post here:
Lectures and the literary scene in Marin County, March 16 through 23, 2014

Free Speech, RIP: A Relic of the American Past

By John W. Whitehead

March 03, 2014

The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting inMinnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign. Thats what the First Amendment is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In fact, if the court rulings handed down in the last week of February 2014 are anything to go by, the First Amendment has, for all intents and purposes, become an exercise in futility.

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling, held that anti-nuclear activist John Denis Apel could be prosecuted for staging a protest on a public road at an Air Force base, free speech claims notwithstanding, because the public road is technically government property.

Insisting that its not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, on February 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials were justified when they ordered three students at a California public high school to cover up their patriotic apparel emblazoned with American flags or be sent home on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo, allegedly out of a concern that it might offend Hispanic students.

On February 28, a federal court dismissed Marine veteran Brandon Raubs case. Despite the fact that Raub was interrogated by Secret Service agents, handcuffed, arrested, subjected to a kangaroo court, and locked up in a mental facility for posting song lyrics and statements on Facebook critical of the governmenta clear violation of his free speech rightsthe court ruled that Raubs concerns about the government were far-fetched and merited such treatment.

There you have it: three rulings in three days, from three different levels of the American judicial system, and all of them aimed at suppressing free speech. Yet what most people fail to understand is that these cases are not merely about the citizenrys right to freely express themselves. Rather, these cases speak to the citizenrys right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

View post:
Free Speech, RIP: A Relic of the American Past

Link to the new Cato Institute podcast about my book Democracy and Political Ignorance.

View original post here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Podcast on my book Democracy and Political Ignorance

A new book narrating the story of the British Virgin Islands coins of the 1800s and 1900s has been published by Laurel Publication International in 2011. The well-documented, ground-breaking work has a foreword by Michael ONeal, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Island Resources Foundation. Coins of the Virgin Islands is a significant contribution to the memory bank of Virgin Islands history, Dr. ONeal said. The Author of The Beautiful and Mysterious Coins of the British Virgin Islands is BVI Philatelic Society president Dr. Giorgio Migliavacca. The findings of years of research on archive sources and lesser known published works are presented by the Author who has achieved a good balance between the historical background, the slavery issue and the numismatic focus. Migliavaccas presentation of numismatic aspects is humanistic rather than strictly scientific and provides a much wider picture. In fact, the Author throws new light on the role of local coinage during the 1800s utilizing newly uncovered and significant archival material. Modern coins and Virgin Islands currencies from the 1800s to date are also examined. This book goes beyond the numismatic side of the story and explores the socio-economic facets revealing important aspects that have not emerged before in history books. Virgin Islands coinage dates back to the early 1800s. On 3 February 1801, an Act was passed by the local Legislature to stamp, or countermark, silver and copper coins in order to create an insular coinage, Migliavacca said. In the Virgin Islands, slaves hoarded the local coins to buy their freedom, and emancipated blacks used cut money to buy estates, big and small. Even before emancipation, slaves, free blacks and Liberated Africans used Virgin Islands coins every day of the week. The local coinage was not a simple witness, it became part of unprecedented and unsuspected changes: from the abolition of slavery, to emancipation, to apprenticeship, to the dark, long and hopeless days of economic stagnation. Cut money became the key that opened the gate of true freedom, resulting in a sense of self reliance, autonomy, and security that still typifies the Virgin Islands of the third millennium, said Dr. Migliavacca. Migliavaccas narrative style makes easy reading and will prove of great interest to both coin collectors and persons interested in Virgin Islands and Caribbean history. The 52-page book is generously illustrated with well-chosen color photographs. Dr. Migliavacca is a member of the British Virgin Islands Stamp Advisory Committee since 1987. He has written articles for the ancient coins magazine Celator, and has contributed entries to the International Dictionary of Numismatics. AVAILABLE

Visit link:
Coins Of The British Virgin Islands


By: AZAZEL8867

Read more:

Feb 232014

The publisher did what had to be done about Donigers book. Now lets make space for free expression

Ever since news broke of Penguin Indias agreement to withdraw The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger, writers, academics and readers have been crying foul and shooting the publisher. This reflexive round has succeeded in catapulting the issue of free speech to primetime news and page one. But continuing to target Penguin is unfair and undesirable.

In the battle for expanding free speech, it is now time for a round of review and reflection.

On rewinding the tape, we see that the publisher has been neither saint nor sinner. Penguin erred in publishing the Indian edition, but the vociferous criticism has been of its withdrawal.

The first argument is that the publisher should have waited for the court order and, if necessary, appealed to the higher courts. Indeed, if the author or publisher felt the book was legal, they should have done just that.

But what if they felt the book was illegal, which is what they seem to imply when blaming Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code?

When people say, The book might be legal. How did Penguin conclude it was illegal? they ignore the everyday publishing environment in which acquisitions editors routinely reject manuscripts they believe are illegal; they do not wait for court orders.

But just as officials take bribes in the hope that they will not get caught, editors occasionally cross the line and publish what they know to be illegal. Recall Donigers recent statement: Penguin India took this book on knowing that it would stir anger in the Hindutva ranks.

It thus appears that the publisher felt the book would offend the religious beliefs of a section of Hindus, and still published it, thereby arguably violating the letter of the law.

True, Penguins assessment is subjective. Another publisher who feels the book does not offend religious feelings can publish The Hindus and, if challenged, take the matter to the Supreme Court because legal battles are fought between parties who dispute whether a book is legal, not between those who agree that a book is illegal.

Excerpt from:
Dont shoot the penguin

Twenty-five years ago, British writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses was viewed as blasphemous by many Muslims, became the target of a fatwa a death decree by then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Rushdie spent 10 years in hiding; several violent attacks, some fatal, were linked to the book the first five years after its publication.

Fortunately, backlash against speech deemed to be offensive rarely turns homicidal. But less drastic attempts to silence undesirable expression are very much with us and they dont just come from authoritarian theocratic regimes, but from people who think they have a right not to be offended.

Historically, censorship has been based on perceived offense to God or government. Now, its based on hurt feelings. Of course, authoritarian governments can easily manipulate such backlash to their advantage. In Russia, the cable channel Dozhd the countrys remaining independent news station and a thorn in the Kremlins side is being dropped by numerous providers after running a poll deemed offensive to World War II veterans. The popular backlash is doing the governments dirty work.

But thats Russia. In America, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 62 percent of colleges and universities have policies that restrict constitutionally protected speech that may be offensive or unwelcome on the basis of race, gender, religion and other characteristics. The foundation, a nonprofit organization championing free speech on campus, has defended students and professors punished for everything from satirizing Islamic Awareness Week to criticizing affirmative action to speaking against the military.

The attitude toward unwelcome expression at many schools is evident in a recent story from Pennsylvanias Swarthmore College, which hosted a discussion between left-wing scholar Cornel West and conservative philosopher Robert George on communicating across differences in values. Many students were angered because George opposes abortion and same-sex marriage views that some said should not be tolerated. One student told the campus newspaper, What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the college newspaper, The Badger Herald, was criticized last fall for publishing a students letter that pointed out that some rape accusations are false and that next-day regrets about drunken sex should not be confused with rape. The editor explained that she ran the letter to raise awareness about the existence of such hateful views on campus.

Efforts to stamp out insensitive speech are not limited to college campuses. A recent story in The New Republic described a campaign in Atlanta to kill a small independent music magazine, Stomp and Stammer known for its irreverent style after it ran a short item calling a popular restaurant owners funeral the most overdone memorial and suggested the deceased woman was undeservedly elevated to local icon because she was a lesbian. Despite an apology from the editor, the magazines advertisers were targeted for a boycott, causing a third of them to withdraw.

Conservatives who deplore such intolerance on the left often show little more tolerance toward expression that offends patriotic or religious sensibilities.

Remember the boycott against the Dixie Chicks after they criticized President George W. Bush at the start of the war in Iraq? Or the protests to shut a 1998 Manhattan production of Terence McNallys play Corpus Christi, which depicts a gay Jesus?

It seems that, when it comes to speech we dislike, we have met the ayatollah, and he is us.

Visit link:
Cathy Young: Accepting free speech means listening to ideas that offend

Feb 172014

It has not been a good week for free speech in India. First, there was Penguin Indias decision to withdraw Wendy Donigers The Hindus from circulation, under legal pressure from fringe right-wing groupsmuch criticized in the media. Fresh on its heels followed Reporters Without Borders annual report, which placed India at a damning 140th place out of 180 countries in terms of press freedoms. Yet even as free speech liberals attempt to regroup, and take stock of a deteriorating situation, there is yet another lawsuit winding its way through the Calcutta High Court, which could have devastating consequences for the independent press in India.

In December, Sahara India initiated a libel lawsuit against Mint Journalist Tamal Bandyopadhyay for his yet to be released book, Sahara: The Untold Story. On December 10, the Calcutta High Court judge stayed the release of the book. Initial indications do not look good for Bandyopadhyay and his publishing house, which has also been made a party to the suit. After reproducing one impugned paragraph, the Judge observed, Prima facie, the impugned materials do show the plaintiffs in poor light.

It is interesting that the impugned paragraph in question specifically states that the allegations it makes are unverified: More such incredible tales abound about Sahara, none that could be substantiated, is the precise wording of the sentence. How the case for libel can be made out even after that express disclaimer is unclear. But what is truly staggering is the amount Sahara is claiming in damages: Rs. 200 crore! It is an amount that no journalist can afford to pay, and one that would drive most publishing houses out of business. (Although the facts are different, the amount is reminiscent of the Rs 100 crore a Pune Court ordered Times Now to pay in damages, for a fifteen-second clip wrongly showing Justice P.B. Sawants photograph in a story about a scam, back in 2011).

It would be bad enough if this was a one-off case. It is particularly alarming, however, because it fits into a larger pattern: the blatant abuse of libel and defamation laws by corporations and individuals in positions of power, to silence critical voices. Hamish McDonalds The Polyester Prince, chronicling the rise of Dhirubhai Ambani, was not published by HarperCollins in India, after legal pressure. Just last month, Bloomsbury agreed to withdraw Jitender Bhargavas The Descent of Air India, a book highly critical of then-aviation minister Praful Patels role in the downfall of the airline, and apologized to Patelagain, under threat of a defamation suit. And now this.

The trend is obvious, and its implications can hardly be understated. Not only do Indians lose access to important books examining the workings of power and capital in India, the nexus between politics and industry, and other similar issues of vital public interestbut the inevitable effect, as incidents such as these pile upwill be pervasive self-censorship by journalists. Who would want to risk a 200-crore lawsuit, to be contested against a corporation with unlimited resources? And if public debate on these matters is killed, we will be much poorer for it.

Is there a solution? Yes, there is. It lies with the Courts, and it is called the rule in New York Times v. Sullivan.

It is a rule that has been favourably referred to by the Supreme Court in some of its free speech cases, and in the last decade, by the Delhi High Court. Yet if there was ever a time to end the ambiguity, and incorporate it directly into Indian law, the time is now, when press freedoms stand at a critical crossroads.

In many respects, New York Times v. Sullivan presented a similar fact situation: the use of libel law by a powerful actor, in an attempt to stifle reporting on a critical issue of national importancethe American Civil Rights movement. On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried an advertisement that described some of the actions of the Montgomery Police force against civil rights protesters. The advertisement carried some factual inaccuracies. For instance, it stated that Martin Luther King had been arrested seven times, whereas he had actually been arrested only four times. It mentioned an incident in which students had been padlocked into a hall to starve them into submission, which actually hadnt happened. And so on. On the basis of these factual inaccuracies, Sullivan, Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner sued for libel. The Alabama Court awarded him damages of 50,000 dollars. New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court. The stakes could not have been higher, because a victory for Sullivan would have led to a slew of similar lawsuits against the New York Times, that would probably have driven it out of business, and made it extremely difficult for other newspapers to report freely on the widespread suppression of civil rights protesters in the American South. Indeed, the respected American free speech scholar, Anthony Lewis, observed that libel laws were the Souths tool of choice to ensure that public opinion would not be swayed by aggressive investigative reporting of police brutality.

The American Supreme Court, in one of its most famous decisions of all time, held in favour of the New York Times. In words that have echoed in the annals of free speech history, Justice Brennan noted:

We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

See original here:
Untold Stories

Feb. 11 marked the124th anniversary ofthe birth ofBoris Pasternak, thefamed Soviet author best known forhis book “Doctor Zhivago,” which was published abroad after being banned inthe Soviet Union.

Pasternak’s birthday was celebrated with great fanfare byRussia’s literati, including anew exhibit dedicated tothe author anda reading ofhis work atthe House Museum ofMarina Tsvetaeva. However, amore demonstrative celebration ofthe author’s legacy could be seen onthe website ofthe Russian branch ofthe PEN International authors’ association, where 51 Russian authors posted anopen letter about thestate offree speech inthe country.

“Recently, inour country we see more andmore distinctly theappearance ofan extremely dangerous tendency toward therestriction ofthe constitutional rights ofcitizens, first andforemost therestriction offreedom ofspeech andthe right todisseminate andreceive information,” theletter says.

Theauthors go onto mention specific instances ofwhat they consider tobe government pressure onfree speech, starting with therecent boycott ofDozhd TV, anindependent television channel that has been taken off theair bynumerous cable providers after acontroversial broadcast about theSiege ofLeningrad. Theauthors blame thegovernment forthe boycott ofDozhd, andalso note increasing pressure onindependent media like theradio station Ekho Moskvy andthe newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

Though now revered as one ofRussia’s greatest authors ofthe 20th century, Pasternak was acontroversial figure during his lifetime, andsuffered fromthe Soviet Union’s restrictions onspeech. Though Pasternak himself was never arrested, he watched close friends be imprisoned andexecuted during Stalin’s purges ofthe 1930s Pasternak’s friend Titsian Tabidze was executed in1937, while his mistress, Olga Ivinskaya, was imprisoned andmiscarried Pasternak’s child early inher 10-year sentence.

Though Pasternak began writing Doctor Zhivago as early as 1910, thebook remained unpublished until 1957. Even after Stalin’s death, it proved impossible topublish thework inthe Soviet Union due toits unorthodox stance onthe Russian Revolution, andPasternak resorted topublishing thetext inthe West.

Despite its warm reception inthe West, Pasternak was punished forsending his work abroad anoutpouring ofcriticism forced Pasternak todecline theNobel Prize, andin 1958, theUnion ofSoviet Writers put Pasternak ontrial andexpelled him fromthe union. Pasternak’s health suffered as aresulted ofhis condemnation, andthe writer died in1960.

Afull 54 years later, Pasternak is now being honored with anexhibit atthe House Museum ofMarina Tsvetaeva, another Soviet author andclose friend ofPasternak who committed suicide in1941 after thearrest ofher husband anddaughter. Themain focus ofthe exhibit is aset ofphotographs ofPasternak taken byValery Avdeyev, agood friend ofPasternak.

Though Avdeyev was not aprofessional photographer, his portrait photographs, made inChistopol in1942, capture thewriter inpersonal moments, revealing more emotion than inmost ofhis photos.

Thewidow ofthe poet’s son, Elena Pasternak, attended theexhibit’s opening andshared her memories ofBoris, discussing his friendship with Avdeyev andTsvetaeva. Aselection ofPasternak’s poems were also recited atthe exhibit opening byAntonina Kuznetsova, aprofessor atRussian University ofTheater Arts, or GITIS, andnational actress ofRussia.

Here is the original post:
Russian Writers Call for Free Speech as Pasternak's Birthday Celebrated

eminem is illuminati for sure
eminem is illuminati you can find the summary of the book “inferno” on wikipedia in this link:

By: aymen haouala

Read the rest here:
eminem is illuminati for sure – Video

21st Century Illuminati DOWNLOAD E-BOOK
21st Century Illuminati DOWNLOAD E-BOOK For More Informations About This Video Click Here ( )


Read more from the original source:
21st Century Illuminati DOWNLOAD E-BOOK – Video


By: AZAZEL8867

Read more:

By attorney Donna Ballman, Special to THELAW.TV

Did you hear about the gun columnist who was fired for writing that the Second Amendment has limits? Oh, the irony. But what, you ask, about the First Amendment? Isn’t he protected by the right to free speech? Can’t he express his opinions without fear of being fired?

I’ve said it in my book and I’ll say it again: there is no free speech in corporate America. The First Amendment protects us from government action, not the actions of private companies. That means you can be fired because your private employer doesn’t like what you said, with very few exceptions. Even government employees have very little free speech protection.

Indeed, there’s been a rash of firings and disciplines for expressing opinions, in and out of work. Justine Sacco, PR executive for Daily Beast owner IAC, was fired for posting, on a flight to South Africa, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” The company was embarrassed when the tweet went viral. Business Insider forced their Chief Technology Officer Pax Dickinson to resign after he tweeted, “feminism in tech remains my champion topic for my block list. my finger is getting tired.” And who can forget “Duck Dynastys” Phil Robertson, suspended (and then quickly reinstated) after making racist and homophobic comments in an Esquire interview. The First Amendment didn’t limit what any of these employers could do.

Still, not all speech is unprotected. Here are some circumstances where your speech might have some legal protection:

Concerted activity: The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) says in Section 7: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, . . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .”That means if you get together with coworkers, or take action on behalf of at least one other coworker (not just on your own behalf), to protest or try to change working conditions, your speech may be protected.

Objecting to discrimination: If you speak out against workplace discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination, and possibly your state anti-discrimination laws.

Political affiliation: Some states, counties, and cities have laws prohibiting discrimination based on political affiliation.

Objecting to illegal activity: If your speech was objecting to an illegal activity of your employer, you might be a protected whistleblower.

Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. However, even those laws have exceptions for activity that affects the employer’s reputation or the ability of the employee to do their job.

Read more from the original source:
Think you have free speech at work? Think again

ILLUMINATI BRAINWASHING: all must die, kill yourself, no regrets

By: AZAZEL8867

ILLUMINATI BRAINWASHING: all must die, kill yourself, no regrets – Video


By: AZAZEL8867

Excerpt from:

FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin

Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by