#Corporal William Rowling | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

UK Phone Hacking Scandal Fast Facts (CNN) — Here’s a look at the phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom. Journalists at British newspapers are accused of making payments to police and hacking into the phones of celebrities, law makers, royalty, murder victims and other figures in the news. Most cases involve News Corp.’s News of the World, but the Sun as well as Mirror Group publications have also settled cases. November 2005 – British tabloid News of the World (NoW) prints a story about Prince William injuring his knee, prompting royal officials to complain to the police of probable voicemail hacking. August 2006 – NoW editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire are arrested for illegal phone hacking. January 26, 2007 – Goodman and Mulcaire are convicted of conspiracy to hack into phone voicemails of royals and are jailed. Andy Coulson, editor of NoW, claims to be unaware of hacking but still resigns. May 15, 2007 – The Press Complaints Commission says it found no evidence of phone hacking at NoW. July 2007 – Goodman and Mulcaire sue NoW for wrongful dismissal. Goodman receives £80,000 and Mulcaire receives an undisclosed amount. Coulson is hired as director of communications for Conservative party leader David Cameron, who becomes UK prime minister in May 2010. June 2008 – News Group Newspapers pays £700,000 to Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, whose phone was hacked by Mulcaire. November 2009 – The Press Complaints Commission releases a report concluding that there is no evidence of continued phone hacking. March 2010 – Celebrity public relations agent Max Clifford agrees to drop his lawsuit against NoW for a payment of more than £1 million. September 2010 – Former NoW journalist Sean Hoare alleges that phone hacking was a common practice at NoW and encouraged by Coulson. January 21, 2011 – Coulson resigns as British Prime Minister Cameron’s spokesman due to coverage of the phone hacking scandal. January 26, 2011 – British Metropolitan Police launch a new investigation into voicemail hacking allegations at NoW. February 25, 2011 – The High Court orders Mulcaire to reveal who asked him to hack phones. April 10, 2011 – NoW officially apologizes for hacking into voicemails from 2004 to 2006, setting up a compensation system for unnamed victims. July 4, 2011 – It is revealed that NoW journalists possibly hacked into missing teenager Milly Dowler’s voicemail in 2002 and deleted messages to free space, causing her parents to believe she was still alive. July 6, 2011 – Rupert Murdoch, owner of NoW, promises full cooperation with the investigation and calls the accusations against NoW “deplorable and unacceptable.” July 7, 2011 – News International announces that the July 10 Sunday edition of NoW will be the paper’s last. July 8, 2011 – Coulson is arrested on claims relating to phone hacking and corruption. Goodman, the paper’s former royal correspondent who served a four-month jail term in 2007, is also arrested on corruption allegations. July 10, 2011 – The tabloid shuts down, issuing a full-page apology for the hacking scandal on page three. The cover says, “Thank You & Goodbye.” July 13, 2011 – News Corp. withdraws its bid to take over British satellite broadcaster BSkyB, as Prime Minister Cameron announces a wide-ranging public inquiry into the British media. July 14, 2011 – The FBI launches an investigation into the allegations that News Corp. employees or associates hacked into phones of 9/11 victims. July 15, 2011 – Rebekah Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of News International, resigns. Les Hinton, former Chairman News International, resigns as head of the Dow Jones division of the News Group Corp. and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. He was Brooks’ predecessor at News International. July 16, 2011 – Murdoch issues an apology for phone hacking via full page ads in seven national newspapers. July 17, 2011 – Brooks is arrested by London police on charges of suspicion of corruption and conspiring to intercept communications. She is released on bail after 12 hours. Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the UK’s highes-ranking policeman, resigns amid the growing controversy and speculation that London police were involved in the phone hacking scandal. This comes after revelations that former NoW executive editor Neil Wallis later became a communications consultant for the police. July 18, 2011 – Assistant Police Commissioner John Yates announces his resignation. Yates had ruled in 2009 not to reopen an investigation of phone hacking by journalists. Home Secretary Theresa May announces that London’s police department will be investigated for corruption by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. July 19, 2011 – Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, and former NoW editor Brooks testify before Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee. July 20, 2011 – Prime Minister Cameron addresses an emergency meeting to the House of Commons concerning the phone hacking scandal at News Group International and his former communications director, Coulson. July 21, 2011 – Colin Myler and Tom Crone, former top executives of NoW, accuse James Murdoch of giving “mistaken” evidence to a parliamentary committee about a settlement to Taylor. August 20, 2011 – Mulcaire is ordered by the court to name who hired him to hack the phones of Clifford, Taylor, Elle Macpherson, Simon Hughes, Sky Andrew and Jo Armstrong. September 14, 2011 – Dozens of celebrities, including Hugh Grant and J.K. Rowling, are given permission to participate in a top-level inquiry into phone hacking by British journalists. September 16, 2011 – Police in London have applied for a court order under the Official Secrets Act to try to force the Guardian newspaper to reveal confidential sources who have provided information on the phone-hacking scandal. October 21, 2011 – News International, publisher of the former NoW newspaper, agrees to pay £2 million – about US $3.2 million – to the family of Dowler. Also, Murdoch will pay £1 million – about US $1.6 million – to charities chosen by the Dowler family. October 25, 2011 – In a News Corp. shareholders vote Murdoch retains his seat, however 14% of the vote is against him. Murdoch’s sons, James Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch, lose their Board of Director seats. November 14, 2011 – The Leveson Inquiry into journalistic culture, practices and ethics opens in London. It is revealed that more than two dozen News International employees used the services of convicted phone hacker Mulcaire. November 21, 2011 – The Leveson Inquiry begins hearing from witnesses, including Grant and the mother of Dowler, in the hacking scandal and in other questionable practices. November 23, 2011 – Gerry McCann and Kate McCann, the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, testify before the Leveson Inquiry. November 24, 2011 – Celebrities Rowling, Sienna Miller and Max Mosley testify before the Leveson Inquiry. December 14, 2011 – Crone, a former NoW lawyer, testifies before Parliament that James Murdoch was made aware in June 2008 of the scope of the phone hacking situation. December 20, 2011 – CNN host Piers Morgan, former editor of both NoW and the Daily Mirror, testifies regarding his exact knowledge of the phone hacking scandal involving Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. February 8, 2012 – NoW’s publisher pays out tens of thousands of pounds to settle lawsuits, including £40,000 ($63,000) and legal costs to actor Steve Coogan, £45,000 ($71,000) plus costs to Hughes, and £75,000 ($119,000) plus costs to sports agent Andrew. Former lawmaker George Galloway gets £25,000 ($40,000) plus costs. Alastair Campbell, who was communications director to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, will be paid costs and damages. February 29, 2012 – James Murdoch gives up his title of executive chairman of News Corp’s UK publishing unit. He will keep his corporate title as deputy chief operating officer. The company says he will now focus on its pay television businesses and international operations. March 13, 2012 – UK police arrest six people, including former NoW editor Brooks. All six are arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. April 3, 2012 – James Murdoch steps down as chairman of UK satellite broadcaster BSkyB. April 5, 2012 – John Ryley, the head of Sky News, admits to authorizing journalists to hack into emails of private citizens. Sky News is owned by News Corp. April 24, 2012 – James Murdoch testifies before the Leveson Inquiry. He insists that he knew little about the scale of phone hacking by people working for NoW and he had no reason to look into illegal eavesdropping by his employees when he took over the company’s British newspaper subsidiary in December 2007. April 26, 2012 – Rupert Murdoch admits at the Leveson Inquiry to the cover-up of phone hacking at NoW and apologizes for not paying more attention to the scandal. May 1, 2012 – British lawmakers investigating phone hacking at NoW declare that Murdoch is not a “fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.” May 15, 2012 – Brooks and her husband, Charlie Brooks, are charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. May 28, 2012 – Blair appears before the Leveson Inquiry and denies any question of an alleged deal between Murdoch and his office while prime minister. June 14, 2012 – Prime Minister Cameron appears before the Leveson Inquiry. He is questioned about an October 7, 2009, text message from Brooks, sent after the newspaper switched support to the Conservatives, and about his relationship with Brooks. July 21, 2012 – A News International spokesman says that Murdoch stepped down last week from a number of company boards of directors, both in the UK and the United States. July 24, 2012 – The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service says that eight people will face a total of 19 charges relating to phone hacking: former NoW staff Coulson, Brooks, Greg Miskiw, Stuart Kuttner, Neville Thurlbeck, Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup are accused of conspiring to intercept communications, while private investigator Mulcaire faces other charges. The accused deny the charges. September 4, 2012 – The number of likely victims jumps to more than 1,000 people, according to the top police officer working on the case. November 20, 2012 – Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service announces that Brooks will be charged with conspiracy over alleged illegal payments to a Ministry of Defence employee. In a separate case, Coulson will face charges of conspiring to make illegal payments to officials for information relating to the royal family. November 29, 2012 – Judge Brian Leveson recommends that the UK news industry create its own regulatory body. He states that Parliament will not create a body to “regulate the press”. February 8, 2013 – News International settles 144 lawsuits related to phone hacking. Seven cases were not settled and are reportedly scheduled to go to trial in June. March 18, 2013 – Siobhain McDonagh, Labour Part MP, accepts “very substantial damages” and an apology from the Sun for accessing text messages from her stolen cell phone. June 18, 2013 – Eunice Huthart, Angelina Jolie’s stunt double, sues News Corp. for possible phone hacking. This is the first US lawsuit against News Corp. October 28, 2013 – The trial of Brooks and Coulson begins. October 30, 2013 – It is revealed that former NoW employees Thurlbeck, Weatherup and Miskiw have pleaded guilty to phone hacking. January 31, 2014 – Miller testifies regarding an alleged affair with Daniel Craig, which is exposed by a tabloid journalist who hacked Craig’s voice mail. February 20, 2014 – The day Brooks is to take the stand for the first time, the judge formally clears Brooks of one charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office, in association with a photograph of Prince William dressed in a bikini at a costume party that was acquired by the Sun newspaper. The four other counts against Brooks still stand. June 24, 2014 – Coulson is found guilty of conspiring to hack phones between 2000 and 2006. Brooks, her husband Charlie Brooks and Kuttner are cleared of all charges against them. July 4, 2014 – After being found guilty of conspiracy, Coulson is sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is released in less than five months. April 17, 2015 – British prosecutors drop charges against nine defendants, including Coulson, awaiting trial on charges they paid officials for information. This marks the end of prosecutions against Coulson. December 11, 2015 – The Crown Prosecution Service announces no further action will be taken in their investigation of the phone hacking. April 28, 2016 – A High Court Judge rules that new phone hackings claims against the Sun newspaper can proceed. January 2018 – News Group settles four claims of phone hacking stemming from the 2016 court ruling for undisclosed sums. The claimants are Jimmi Harkishin, Chris Herbert, Vic Reeves and Kate Thornton. February 5, 2018 – Actor Hugh Grant settles a phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People. The company had admitted all three newspapers had hacked into his voice mails. September 27, 2018 – News Group settles 16 claims. Claimants include former boxer Frank Bruno and six stars of the show Coronation Street. February 1, 2019 – Lawyers for Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Heather Mills and Fiona Mills release a statement that they have settled phone-hacking claims against NoW. May 20, 2020 – Lawyers for actor Kris Marshall report that they have settled his phone-hacking claim against NoW for an undisclosed amount. February 25, 2021 – Mirror Group Newspapers settles damages over phone hacking claims from a number of celebrities including actors Martin Clunes and David Walliams, issuing an apology and unspecified monetary compensation. March 4, 2021 – News Group settles 13 claims. Claimants include Great British Bake Off star Noel Fielding and Coronation Street and Shameless actor Chris Bisson. Rupert Murdoch – Australian-born founder and CEO of News Corporation Ltd., the parent company of News International. News International owns the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times in the UK. Murdoch’s holdings also include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Harper Collins. Rebekah Brooks – Former Chief Executive of News International, editor of the NoW at the time that the alleged hackings occurred. Brooks resigned on July 15, 2011. Andy Coulson – Most recently Cameron’s communications chief and former editor of NoW, resigned after the 2007 conviction of Goodman and Mulcaire but claimed not to know about hacking. Clive Goodman – Former NoW’s royal editor, jailed for four months after being convicted of conspiracy to intercept phone messages. Glenn Mulcaire – Private investigator jailed for six months after being convicted of conspiracy to intercept phone messages. Hugh Grant – Actor and hacking victim, calls for comprehensive inquiry into tabloid journalism in Britain. Chris Bisson, actor – undisclosed amountFrank Bruno, boxer – undisclosed amountCharlotte Church, singer – £600,000Martin Clunes, actor – undisclosed amountFamily of Milly Dowler, murdered teenager – £2 millionChristopher Eccleston, actor – undisclosed amountSarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York – undisclosed amountNoel Fielding, actor – undisclosed amountSadie Frost, ex-wife of Jude Law – £50,000David Furnish, filmmaker – undisclosed amount Uri Geller, psychic – undisclosed amountHugh Grant, actor – undisclosed amountJimmi Harkishin, actor – undisclosed amountGavin Henson, rugby player – £40,000Chris Herbert, manager – undisclosed amountSimon Hughes, Liberal Democrat MP – £45,000Elizabeth Hurley, actress – undisclosed amount Elton John, singer – undisclosed amountJude Law, actor – £130,000Kris Marshall, actor – undisclosed amountSienna Miller, actress – £100,000Heather Mills, ex-wife of Paul McCarthy – undisclosed amountFiona Mills, sister of Heather Mills – undisclosed amountJohn Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister – £40,000Vic Reeves, comedian – undisclosed amountKate Thornton, journalist – undisclosed amountDavid Walliams, actor – undisclosed amount Source link Orbem News #Facts #Fast #Hacking #Phone #Scandal

0 notes

words-smith · 4 years ago

Text

Books read 2020

Reading across many different genres. So much tempting stuff out here :-) Some of it not what I expected. Makes it even more exciting. In the actual order of reading:

Yuko Tsushima (2017) Territory of light. Penguin Books, London, 122pp.

Nikolai Gogol (2014) The Government Inspector & other works. Wordsworth Classics, Ware, xxxv + 552pp.

Han Kang (2018) The white book. Portobello Books, London, 161pp.

Jonas Jonasson (2016) Hitman Anders and the meaning of it all. 4th Estate, London, 370pp.

Francis Fukuyama (2012) The end of history and the last man. Penguin Books, London, xxiii + 418pp.

JK Rowling (2014) Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. Bloomsbury, London, 462pp.

Jean-Paul Sartre (2000) Nausea. Penguin Books, London, xx + 253pp.

Ole Schultz Larsen (2017) Håndbog til dansk. Systime, Aarhus, 356pp.

Mary Beard (2016) SPQR - a history of ancient Rome. Profile Books, London, 606pp.

John Williams (2003) Augustus. Vintage Books, London, xv + 317pp.

Tom Shippey (2005) The road to Middle-Earth. HarperCollinsPublishers, London, xxi + 474pp.

Paul Collier (2011) The plundered planet. Penguin Book, London, xv + 271pp.

Steven Pinker (2018) Enlightenment now. Viking, New York, xix + 556pp.

Piero Boitano (2020) A new sublime. Europa Editions, London, 268pp.

Elizabeth Strout (2019) Olive, again. Viking, London, 289pp.

Erich Fromm (1990) The sane society. Holt Paperbacks, New York, xiv + 370pp.

Éric Vuillard (2019) The order of the day. Picador, London, 129pp.

Edward O. Wilson (1998) Consilience. Abacus, London, 374pp.

Adam D. Kiš (2018) The development trap. Routledge, New York, xvii + 171pp.

Anthony Everitt (2013) The rise of Rome. Random House, New York, xxxii + 478pp.

Chris Scarre (1995) Historical atlas of ancient Rome. Penguin Books, London, 144pp.

Steven Radelet (2015) The great surge. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, xiv + 354pp.

Sulmaan Wasif Khan (2015) Muslim, trader, nomad, spy. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, xxiv + 189pp.

Keigo Higashino (2019) Newcomer. Abacus, London, 322pp.

Anton Chekhov (2018) The lady with the dog and other stories. Stories: Volume one. Riverrun, London, viii + 471pp.

George R.R. Martin (2011) A storm of swords. Part I: Steel and snow. HarperVoyager, London, 623pp.

Julius Caesar (2008) The Gallic war. Oxford University Press, Oxford, li + 260pp.

Alice Monroe (2015) Lives of girls and women. Vintage Books, London, 320pp.

Petronius Arbiter (undated) The satyricon. Ægypan Press, Milon Keynes, 289pp.

Dorthe Nors (2018) Kort over Canada. Gyldendal, Copenhagen, 137pp.

Alan Lee (2005) The Lord of the Rings sketchbook. HarperCollinsPublishers, London, 192pp.

Douglas Murray (2020) The madness of crowds. Bloomsbury, London, 293pp.

Peter H Diamandis and Steven Kotler (2014) Abundance. Free Press, London, xiii + 412pp.

Daniel J. Miller (2008) Drokpa - nomads of the Tibetan plateau and Himalaya. Vajra Publications, Kathmandu, 133pp.

Leslie S Klinger (ed) (2014) The new annotated H.P. Lovecraft. Liveright Publishing Corporation, London, lxx + 852pp.

Lawrence Durrell (2012) The black book. Faber and Faber, London, 244pp.

0 notes

filmstruck · 7 years ago

Photo

The Devil’s in the Details: LES VISITEURS DU SOIR (’42) by Nathaniel Thompson

Now here’s a film that won’t appeal to everyone, and indeed, opinion has been sharply divided since Criterion unleashed this curious supernatural fantasy on the American public a few years ago. However, if you’re in the right frame of mind, LES VISITEURS DU SOIR (’42) is pure magic on film.

One of three masterful films made by Marcel Carné during World War II, including the pre-Occupation LE JOUR SE LÈVE (’39) and the most beloved epic made during the infamous reign of the Vichy government, CHILDREN OF PARADISE (’45), this is easily the least known of the trio outside of France. Inexplicably, the film was barely given a theatrical release at all in the U.S. (courtesy of a short-lived specialty outfit called Superfilm Distributing Corporation) and never had an English-friendly American release until Criterion’s in 2012. Talk about delayed gratification for film fans.

It’s curious how some films catch fire with English speakers and others fall between the cracks, and French cinema is loaded with titles that either took decades to find an audience or still remain strangely underappreciated. (Another devil-themed gem from the following year, 1943’s LA MAIN DU DIABLE, is a prime example as well.) Here, the story is about two of the devil’s envoys, played by the great Alain Cuny and CHILDREN OF PARADISE’s iconic Arletty, who disguise themselves as minstrels and infiltrate a castle where they wreak romantic havoc on an impending wedding. The stage seems set for a romantic comedy with spooky overtones, but the film is actually something quite different and almost unclassifiable.

If you’re an art history buff, this film is a particular treat as it draws heavy inspiration from medieval French art including the famous miniature painters, the Limbourg brothers, whose Très riches heures du Duc de Berry is a strong visual influence and forms the basis of those strikingly aesthetic, flattened outdoor shots. That aspect creeps throughout the whole film right from the opening titles (done in the style of illuminated manuscripts), with the elaborate period garb and intricate castle scenes creating an enchanting fairy tale atmosphere that never overwhelms the darker aspects of the plot. In fact, it’s hard to watch this film without drawing associations to Jean Cocteau’s masterpiece, Beauty and the Beast (1946), which also uses medieval visual tropes in a charming supernatural fashion and plays around with the filmic depiction of time, as seen here with revelers at a ball freezing in mid-dance as their romantic fortunes take an unexpected turn. The ending of this film with its lyrical twist involving statuary wouldn’t be out of place for Cocteau either, but this is really a Carné film all the way.

What’s especially interesting is how this film doesn’t shy away from the more complex and ambiguous nature of its subject matter, with the conclusion veering away from what you’d really classify as a happy ending. It isn’t the kind of resolution you’d expect audiences to flip out for in the midst of German oppression, but that’s exactly what did happen; it’s the kind of sad but wistful and ultimately hopeful gesture that people wanted to see, with a resonance that gives its sparing but potent injections of literal magic a meaning that hums nicely even now in modern society. Odd as it may sound, I imagine J.K. Rowling would be a big fan of this film with its clear-eyed but optimistic view of magical perseverance and sacrifice.

As much as this film tends to be read within its place in French cinema history and its curious position within its darkest historical hour, I think there’s also value in looking at it as a tribute and commentary of sorts to the escapist period fantasies being turned out by Hollywood over the preceding decade. The outdoor scenes in particular, such as the encounter in some eerily shaded ruins at the 56-minute mark, feel akin to the otherworldly settings seen in everything from William Dieterle and Max Reinhardt’s A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM (’35) to Michael Curtiz’s THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (’38). The difference here is that this doesn’t quite feel like poetic escapism; there’s a sense of dread and trauma running underneath the proceedings even if the ultimate conclusion is that humanity and love itself will find a way to endure, even if it isn’t always in the form we might expect or prefer.

If you like this film, I’d also recommend checking out the thorough 37-minute “Making of” featurette also available on FilmStruck. Made in 2009, it provides some great context about how films made during the French Occupation were acts of bravery simply by virtue of being made at all, with this one in particular being perceived by local audiences as an allegory of sorts with the devil standing in for Adolph Hitler. (The filmmaker himself rejected this interpretation, but you know what they say about art and audiences.) In particular there’s quite a bit of detail about Continental Films, the infamous German-contracted company responsible for the lion’s share of French films made during the period. (I covered the very first Continental film, L’ASSASSINAT DU PÈRE NOËL from 1941, a little while ago and recommend checking it out as well.) Most interestingly, the film was shot in both occupied Paris and free areas of France, which caused massive headaches with getting the cast and crew back and forth with the appropriate paperwork. Hopefully you’ll agree that all of their effort was worth it.

#FilmStruck #Les Visiteurs du soir #Marcel Carné #French cinema #StreamLine Blog #Criterion Collection #Nathaniel Thompson

32 notes · View notes

xtruss · 4 years ago

Text

The Panel Censorship

Is Free Speech Under Threat From 'Cancel Culture'? Four Writers Respond

— An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

— Nesrine Malik, Jonathan Freedland, Zoe Williams and Samuel Moyn | Wednesday 8 July, 2020 | The Guardian USA

Author Noam Chomsky. ‘Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase ‘axis of evil’ – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention.’ Photograph: Heuler Andrey/AFP/Getty Images

A group of 150 academics, writers and activists have signed an open letter in Harper’s magazine expressing concern that “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments” are “[weakening] norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”. Four writers weigh up the issues

Nesrine Malik: Don’t confuse being told you’re wrong with the baying of a mob

The idea of “cancel culture”, the obvious, albeit unnamed, target of this letter, collapses several different phenomena under one pejorative label. It’s puzzling to me that a statement signed by a group of writers, thinkers and journalists, most whom have Ivy League or other prestigious credentials, would fail to at least establish a coherent definition of what it believes cancel culture is before seeming to condemn it.

The fact is that decisions made by corporate HR departments, failings in editing processes at media organisations such as the New York Times, and the demands of movements for social justice to be accorded recognition and respect do not constitute one clear trend. The new climate of “censoriousness”, if there is one, cannot be diagnosed and dispatched this easily.

In my view, the failure to make these distinctions clear is probably less an oversight and more of a convenient fudge. Because outrage about cancel culture can’t be credibly sustained when you start breaking down what it actually consists of. Companies hastily sacking people who have been mobbed online is about the bottom line and fear of bad PR. It raises interesting questions, but these are more about employment rights and the encroachment by bosses into areas of private opinion and conduct. Being piled on online is nasty, but it is broadly a function of how social media in particular and the internet in general has enabled bullying for the hell of it. Sometimes human beings are unpleasant, and certain platforms are designed to bring out the worst in them. That is separate to the demands for change emerging from many marginalised groups.

In not parsing these different patterns clearly, the Harper’s letter commits the same offence it accuses others of doing: indulging in “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”.

To those unaccustomed to being questioned, this all feels personal. They have confused a lack of reverence from people who are able to air their views for the very first time with an attack on their right to free speech. They have mistaken the new ways they can be told they are wrong or irrelevant as the baying of a mob, rather than exposure to an audience that has only recently found its voice. The world is changing. It’s not “cancel culture” to point out that, in many respects, it’s not changing quickly enough.

• Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Jonathan Freedland: The reaction to the letter has shown the need for it

Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase “axis of evil” – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention. It takes some doing to get, say, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and Bernie Sanders advocate Zephyr Teachout to join forces, and there are dozens of similarly unlikely ideological match-ups to be found among those who signed the letter published by Harper’s Magazine.

Endorsed by a bulging list of esteemed writers, artists and public intellectuals, this letter might well come to be seen as an inflection point in an argument that has been rumbling away, much of it on social media, for months if not years. And yet, the text hardly reads like some ground-breaking, revolutionary document. Luther’s 95 Theses, it ain’t.

Instead, as one signatory, Anne Applebaum, conceded on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, it consists of a series of statements that are, in themselves, quite “anodyne”. It’s not disparaging to say that the document, like many open letters, represents a lowest common denominator, a bare minimum that would be acceptable – indeed, obvious – to the likes of both Frum and Chomsky. The letter declares, for example, that: “The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.” Are there many who would disagree with those words, who would want to make out loud the case for wishing away what they don’t like?

And yet the statement has not been received as a boilerplate recitation of the case for free expression, but has become controversial. That’s partly because of the text itself – which some have read as brimming with thin-skinned privilege, seeing it as a coded attack on marginalised minorities for having the gall to criticise people with power and platforms – but also, as happens often with open letters, because of the names at the bottom. One name in particular has provoked fury: that of JK Rowling, because of her writings on trans rights and gender. At least two signatories have distanced themselves from the letter since its publication.

It’s clear that a number of people believe Rowling should not be included in such statements, that her views have placed her outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. As it happens, the letter speaks of this phenomenon when it describes “a vogue for public shaming and ostracism.” It seems the Harper’s letter might be a rare example of the reaction to a text making the text’s case rather better than the text itself.

• Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

Zoe Williams: There is no such thing as pure freedom of expression

“We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences,” the Harper’s letter concludes. I was about to say I broadly agreed. But wait: broadly? I wholeheartedly agree. How can intellectual inquiry flourish if people can’t express themselves in good faith? Should professional consequences ever be dire for taking what is later considered to be the wrong position in a debate? Then again, this is quite an abstract proposition. Get into the weeds – what counts as good faith, and who decides – and I might find myself on the other side. If David Starkey complained about “so many damn blacks” in good faith, then I’m definitely on the other side. Professional consequences start off dire for the people who are cancelled en masse by structural racism. At least old white dudes get the respect of being cancelled on a case-by-case basis.

This reminds me a lot of the arguments we used to have about religious tolerance in the 90s. Toleration was a good and necessary thing; but what if it meant you had to tolerate people who themselves wouldn’t tolerate you? That would be fine, we’d shrug: how live an issue was that, really? “Very live!” Melanie Philips and others might exclaim. “Look, here’s a preacher who wants you to burn in hell. Eat that, logisticians.” It was part of the remorseless generation of hatred and suspicion towards Muslims, yes: but separate to that, it was a move towards the territory of absolutes. People who are suspicious of, or simply bored by, consensus love to pin liberals down with these paradoxes. It is so droll to watch them flapping about, either side of the wedge.

What we do know is that there is no such thing as total tolerance: it cannot logically tolerate intolerance. And there is no such things as pure freedom of expression either: the expression of some views necessarily encroaches on the dignity and freedom of others. This is partly a failure of speech itself, which has the facility to raise impossible propositions – Eagleton’s unstoppable force meeting an immovable object – but not to resolve them. Mainly it’s a failure of humans. We should think carefully before lining up behind an abstract, on either side – absolutes have a tendency to dissolve on contact with reality. And it’s in reality, of course, with its compromises and discomforts and competing demands, that we actually live.

• Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Samuel Moyn: Abuse of the power to cancel is why I signed the letter

I am not a free speech absolutist. Language is part of how our world is constituted. It does not operate free from the dangers and hierarchies of real life; it makes them possible. Calls for open debate routinely conceal the endurance of hierarchies. Distinguishing between necessarily helpful speech and potentially harmful acts, as John Stuart Mill did and as free speech absolutists do, will not work. And without necessarily incurring the risk of slippery slopes, we can ban – or even empower the state to do so. We can cancel too.

But these are powers that do risk abuse and overuse. And that is why I signed the letter, and would do so again.

If it is true that hierarchies are in part maintained – not just undone – by speech, and that speech can harm and not just help, it doesn’t follow that more free speech for more people isn’t generally a good cause. It is.

Recent events have, in my opinion, proved that a successful movement – one with which I sympathise – can err and undermine its further inroads into opinion. Mill was wrong about a lot. But he was right that “the wellbeing of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of being uncontested”. Recent abuse and overuse of our power to ban and cancel, put simply, have sometimes hurt the continuing normalisation of truths we care about.

I don’t have the standing to talk down to or tutor those angry about the letter. But it is also correct that some of the chief victims of excessive policing of speech in history have been those with progressive politics like mine. I didn’t know who else would sign it when I did, but I reserve the right to criticise many of them, not just for their own hypocritical patrolling of speech in the past but also for their regularly disastrous ideas. Supporting economic and geopolitical catastrophe is far worse than participating in evanescent Twitter mobs or even more harmful censorship. And we will have missed an opportunity provided by those now honourably calling for free speech if we do not continue to indict the world their speech has made.

• Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale

0 notes

joshuajacksonlyblog · 4 years ago

Text

Tesla CEO Elon Musk Says He Isn’t “For or Against” Ethereum

Every few months, Tesla’s chief executive Elon Musk comments on Bitcoin, Ethereum, or another cryptocurrency.

In May, he commented on Bitcoin to J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series. Responding to the author’s assertions that she doesn’t understand the leading cryptocurrency, Musk wrote:

“Pretty much, although massive currency issuance by government central banks is making Bitcoin Internet money look solid by comparison.”

July 2nd marked Musk’s latest comment about cryptocurrencies. This time, he addressed his personal stance on Ethereum, responding to William Shatner, known for portraying Captain James T. Kirk.

Elon Musk Doesn’t Own Any Ethereum And Isn’t For Or Against It

Over recent years, it has become known that Canadian actor William Shatner is a proponent of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. He half-jokingly tweeted in 2018:

“Hey Sporto I’m Crypto-hip I’m just HODLing back from calling you out but if you have a FUD about your FOMO, don’t worry you’ll just end up as a bagholder.”

In the middle of 2019, Shatner cemented this further, tweeting out his support for an Ethereum-based project. In that same tweet, he also tagged Vitalik Buterin, the founder of the blockchain, and Musk.

On July 2nd, Musk finally responded to the tweet by asserting that he isn’t “building anything on Ethereum.”

“I’m not building anything on ETH. Not for or against it, just don’t use it or own any.”

A short comment, sure, but this isn’t the first time Musk has mentioned the cryptocurrency. In 2019, Musk asked Buterin what use cases Ethereum has, an interaction that presumably is what caused Shatner to tag the two.

There Are Prominent Firms Working on the Blockchain

While Musk may not be working on Ethereum, there are prominent companies and entrepreneurs that are.

Adam Cochran, a partner at Metacartel Ventures and an adjunct professor at Conestoga College in Canada, observed that Fortune 500 companies are dabbling in Ethereum per his analysis.

By looking at the top 10,000 ETH wallets (by holding size), he found:

“Wallets associated with major players such as JPMorgan Chase, Reddit, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, and Walmart [are accumulating ETH].”

Some of the companies listed are also working on blockchain projects, hence their propensity to acquire the cryptocurrency.

Reddit, for instance, is working on a blockchain-based points system to incentivize community growth and presumably create a new revenue stream. The system has been dubbed “Community Points” and is slated to be launched on the Ethereum mainnet once it exits beta.

Separately, “Big Four” auditor Ernst & Young (EY) has created a technology dubbed “Nightfall.” The technology aims to make Ethereum-based transactions more private, which will presumably incentivize corporations to begin to leverage the blockchain.

If Musk will follow these firms, though, remains to be seen.

Featured Image from Shutterstock Price tags: ethusd Tesla CEO Elon Musk Says He Isn't "For or Against" ETH

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/2C5yJZy via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Cryptocracken Tumblr

0 notes

michaelbennettcrypto · 4 years ago