Pranayama is the practice of breath control for the sake of enlightenment, purification, and great old-fashioned comfort. There is nothing like laughing in a breathing break to clean the mind and calm your body.

Reach for these very simple but powerful practices whenever you have to clean out the cobwebs and inspire internal stillness.

Also calledalternate nostril breathing, this procedure quickly alleviates tension and pressure, balancing the 2 hemispheres of their brain.

The Way to Practice:

Make use of the thumb to Obstruct the right nostril.

Gently inhale through the left nostril.

Pause for a few moments after the inhale.

Use your ring finger to close your left nostril.

Publish the breath slowly through the ideal nostril.

Duplicate to get a couple of rounds.

As you breathe, then place a goal to balance the mind and stay engaged in the tradition. Alternate nostril breathing is particularly helpful at the end of a very long day when you would love to quiet your mind and revel in profound rest.

We are often so worried about our inhales and exhales we completely overlook the distance located between. Kumbhaka is the condition of pause, or suspension, involving the breaths, also helps individuals locate stillness through concentrated mindfulness.

How to Exercise:

Pause and hold for a few minutes on the peak of the breath.

Hold a few minutes at the base of the breath.

Repeat for five minutes, then come back to a normal breath.

This pattern of breathing might feel somewhat unnatural at first after all, we are typically rushed within our hectic lives but in time you will become more conscious of your breathing patterns (as well as the cheque discovered within) and will realize your breath obviously grows more stable, profound, and deliberate with exercise.

Also called thesea breath, this extreme pranayama practice is fantastic for cooling down the body and quieting the nervous system. Be certain that you try out this technique in a place in which you feel comfortable breathing loudly.

How to Exercise:

Try to maintain a straight, even back because you breathe.

-Yank every breath securely in and push it out via the rear of the nasal passage.

Repeat for a couple of minutes, surrendering into comfort. You will know you have got it right in case your breath takes about a sea waves noise whooshing in and whooshing out rhythmically.

This is a great breathing technique to integrate into a yoga practice, but maybe practiced a la carte during times of stress, overheating, or overall psychological strain.

This is just another cooling, calming breath procedure that is great for stress relief and psychological wellness. Sitali requires a little bit of tongue ability, but it is easy when you get the hang of it.

How to Exercise:

Take a deep, complete inhale having an open mouth.

In the peak of the breath, then touch the roof of your mouth with the tip of the tongue and shut your mouth.

Release throughout the nose.

Yoga and pranayama always help you to get close to yourself and find the real you. These pranayamas will also help you de-stress your mind and body from this stressful life.

Should you find it hard to master this procedure, envisiondrinking the new atmosphere, together with your tongue like a straw. You are able to repeat this clinic for a couple of rounds, or until youre feeling chilled (emotionally and physically!).

Breath is the essence of life, and pranayama helps to associate with this wonderful force, directing it through the exhausted and nervous components of ourselves and restoring our reassurance. Source:-doyouyoga.com

Go here to read the rest:
Pranayams that will increase your mental productivity - Thrive Global

Henry Kissinger reminisces saying, Google is a threat to civilization, but that through his best friend Eric Schmidt, he has come to view AI as something that will change human consciousness.

I became a great friend of Eric Schmidt, who is today one of my best friends. He invited me to give a speech at Google [] and I began my speech by saying [] I want you all to understand that I consider Google a threat to civilization as I understand it'

Henry Kissinger, the man who has pushed for a one world government for decades and whose policies have played a direct role in some of the most heinous global atrocities of the past 60-odd years, is preaching AI ethics this week.

Over the years, Eric [Schmidt] was kind enough to introduce me to a lot of artificial intelligence researches [..] and I am concerned with the historical, philosophical, strategic aspect of it, said Kissinger at theNational Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Conference on Tuesday.

Ive become convinced that artificial intelligence, and its surrounding disciplines, is going to bring a change in human consciousness exceeding that of the Enlightenment

Ive become convinced that artificial intelligence, and its surrounding disciplines, is going to bring a change in human consciousness exceeding that of the Enlightenment because of the inherent scope of the investigations it imposes, Kissinger added.

The 96 year-old statesman has played a hand in US foreign policies such as the carpet bombing of Cambodia, ousting the democratically elected president of Chile, approving Argentinas Dirty War, and supporting genocide in Bangladesh, among many, many others.

I think the technicians are too modest in the sense that theyre doing a spectacular thing, but they dont ask enough of what it means. I would say the same for strategists. This is bound to change the nature of strategy and of warfare

In his book Behold a Pale Horse, researcher Bill Cooper remarked that Kissinger has been a traitor to this country for many, many years and that he got his start in policy making when Rockefeller gave Kissinger a grant of $50,000 in the early 50s, a fortune in those days, and made dear old Henry amember of the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations].

However, Kissinger has continued to advise every US president since the 1950s, and his unique perspectives stem from a vast wealth of knowledge and experience that is unparalleled in modern foreign policy.

He became interested in AI after befriending the former head of Google even though he considered Google to be a threat to civilization.

Let me give a few words about how I came into this field. I became a great friend of Eric Schmidt, who is today one of my best friends. He invited me to give a speech at Google [] and I began my speech by saying [] I want you all to understand that I consider Google a threat to civilization as I understand it. This was the beginning of our friendship.

Kissinger doesnt shun AI, yet he doesnt fully embrace it either. He more or less accepts that its arrival is inevitable, but due to the unpredictable outcomes the technology demonstrates, AI shouldnt be the sole decision maker on the battlefield.

AI will exist and will shape us,the 96 year-old statesman claimed.

The key problem we face in actual crises as security advisers is how do you threaten with nuclear weapons without triggering a preemptive strike on the other side? As the weapons themselves became more esoteric, even in terms of the 70s, when we move to fixed, land-based missiles, they had a high potential for retaliation, but next to no potential for being used diplomatically.

I think it will become standard that AI algorithms will be part of the decision making processes, but as that happens, the decision makers have to think through the limits of it.

Kissinger suggested playing war games to measure the reliability of AI decision making on the battlefield.

AI breaks simulated laws of physics to win at hide and seek

Much of human effort has been to explain the reality around it

The accused war criminal also warned that, just like in the 1993 Jurassic Park movie, scientists are so preoccupied with pushing the boundaries of technology that they dont stop to think of the consequences.

I think the technicians are too modest in the sense that theyre doing a spectacular thing, but they dont ask enough of what it means. I would say the same for strategists. This is bound to change the nature of strategy and of warfare.

He added, AI has consequences that we elicit, but we dont always know why.

As a whole, Kissinger sees AI as an esoteric force that will change the human perception of reality.

In the conceptual field I think that its [AI] the next big step for mankind, and that Now, unpredictable consequences are going to follow.

Much of human effort has been to explain the reality around it. The Enlightenment brought a way of looking at it on a mathematical basis and on a rational basis.

The idea that you can explore reality in partnership of what is out there, and that you explore it by means of algorithms where you know what they will produce, but you do not yet know why that is when people start thinking about it. That will fundamentally affect human perceptions.

US Army is putting all its AI eggs in one basket, AI in every system

Go here to read the rest:
Google is a threat to civilization and Eric Schmidt is one of my best friends: Henry Kissinger - The Sociable

A new initiative has been launched between Mearns Heritage Services and the Royal Society of Arts.

It got under way at an inaugural business breakfast held last Thursday and hosted by Lathallan School.

The project is being promoted by Richard Toley, head of Lathallan, Neil McLennan, of the University of Aberdeen, and Dave Ramsay, director of Mearns Heritage Services.

A series of monthly breakfasts are planned as a joint working initiative between Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council, supported by the RSA, and reflecting the broad agendas of the RSA, covering the arts, culture, heritage, business, education and social change.

Neil McLennan was the speaker at the inaugural breakfast on the subject of Creating the Modern Enlightenment.

He said: The RSA owes its history to the enlightenment era.

Angus and the Mearns historically and today has some of the most creative minds and inspiring innovations.

This network will aim to bring those ideas together and ensure they impact positively on our communities.

Fourteen invited guests with a variety of professional, organisational and specialist areas of expertise and knowledge, set the scene for a busy programme of forthcoming events, to promote Angus and the Mearns.

The event was also attended by Aberdeenshire Provost Bill Howatson.

The range of topics will ensure a broad network of local interests, information and activities.

Dave Ramsay is responsible for the programming, planning and arranging of events, and chairing each session to provide continuity.

He said: This new initiative will include topics and inputs decided by Lathallan, in conjunction with input from the fellowship who attend the network gatherings.

Here is the original post:
Heritage and arts initiative in Mearns - Mearns Leader

Former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh here on Friday stressed the need for unity of thought and action, saying it was required now more than ever.

"More than any other period of human history, the need for unity of thought and action today is the most urgent," said the former PM speaking on the concluding day of an international conference on Guru Nanak Dev by the Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID) here.

"When the world is breaking up into fragments, and fragments clash with fragments, surrendering all sense and purpose of living for the larger humanity, it is the humanity which seeks transcendence from narrow limits and boundaries," Singh stressed.

Saying that today's world was beset with violence and rejection, the former PM said the humanity needed to provide succour to the people "ejected from their land and hearth".

"We are hearing the cry of the refugees and their children in the middle east, we hear the cry of the deprived and we hear the cry of those who are abandoned by the unjust social and economic order," he said.

The former prime minister also called for an alternative model of society based on truth, gender equality, protection of the environment and universal responsibility due to serious challenges posed by unchecked exploitation of natural resources, growing race for arms, continued exploitation of the poor by the rich and growing environmental degradation.

"For a lasting peace in the turbulent world that we live in, let me conclude by offering a prayer from the Guru Granth Sahib: This world is burning O' Lord, show thy mercy, thy grace and save it through whatever door thou can," said Singh.

Earlier, speaking on the Sikhism founder he said, "Guru Nanak Dev ji's hymns contained in the Guru Granth Sahib show that India at that time was passing through a period of civilisational conflict."

"Fortunately, the wise and women from different faiths joined together for the cause of peace and love, which resulted in the formation of the Bhakti and Sufi movements," he added.

Singh said both movements emphasised transcending narrow boundaries created in the name of caste, colour, creed and preached love, peace and devotion to God.

He said Guru Nanak demonstrated his concern for the poor and needy at an early age when he was given Rs 20 by his father for a profitable business.

Instead, he purchased food for hungry sadhus and began the institution of langar (free community kitchen), where food was served to all without any distinction of high and low, he said.

Speaking on the stay of the Guru at Sultanpur Lodhi, where he got enlightenment on the banks of the Kali Bein, Manmohan Singh said, "It is important to note that the first words the Guru uttered after his enlightenment were 'na koi Hindu, na Koi Musalman', clearly indicating that his mission was to unite humanity."

The former PM said the Guru's teachings could be summed up in three Punjabi words--naam japna, kirat karna and wand chhakna (meditation, hard and honest labour, and sharing fruits of one's earnings with others).

Continue reading here:
Need unity of thought, action: Manmohan Singh - Moneycontrol.com

Published Nov 8, 2019 at 8:00 am(Updated Nov 8, 2019 at 12:26 am)

Dockyard sunset (Photograph by Janos Lengyel)

Letters to the Editor

Dear Sir,

We are facing some challenging times. Will we get through them? Are we up for the challenge? We can be, for we live in a universe of infinite possibilities.

Everywhere we look there is upheaval, unrest as citizens and governments are at odds. We are inundated with leaders wielding worldly power and trying to implement questionable strategies that impact on their citizens in ways that their peace and wellbeing are being threatened.

It is time for us all to take and spend time in the hallowed chambers, alone, in the silence, seeking the path of enlightenment, asking for guidance, wisdom and understanding.

As we each take this inside journey in honesty, we will eventually realise we are all children of the universe and so entitled to its blessings, and as we hold in consciousness, so shall we create in reality.

It is time for us to awaken, be enlightened and fill the world with our love and not our fears. The choice is yours. Be blessed.

A. CONSTANCE McHARDY

Smiths

Read more from the original source:
It's time to awaken and fill the world with love - Royal Gazette

Riley Brown, Contributing Writer

WONY Radio is proud to announce that Abby Perrin, Baylee Bruno, and Lindsey Geoghegan are this weeks DJs of the week! Their show, This Is Gonna Hurt is a weekly talk and music show hosted by the trio. Each week, the hosts play their Song of the Week and then discuss their Pick of the Week, which could be anythingfrom a brand of marinara sauce to a recent concert they went to. The show ends with Rose, Thorn, and Bud, a review of the hosts good and bad moments of the past week and then something they are looking forward to. In between segments, they enjoy discussingcurrent pop culture events, nostalgia, and favorite movies.

Abby is a junior music industry major and computer art minor. Formerly the host of Full Circle, Its Spherical, and Block Party Whisper, she has been a WONY DJ since Spring 2018 and became the Communications Director in fall 2019.This year, she serves as the stations Operations Manager. Outside of WONY, Abby serves as the Music Industry Clubs Vice President. She loves to be involved in local live music and in her free time travels all around to see her favorite bands.

Baylee is a junior music industry major and event planning minor. She has been a WONY DJ and events department member since Spring 2019, and is the former host of The Buzz. Outside of WONY, Baylee serves as the Music Industry ClubsSecretary. She loves to travel and will be studying abroad in Japan during the spring 2020 semester.

Lindsey is a sophomore music industry major. She has been a WONY DJ and events department member since Fall 2018 and is the former host of Enlightenment. Outside of WONY, Lindsey serves as Hooked On Tonics Vice President. She lovesmany types of music and watching comedy shows.

Tune into This Is Gonna Hurt every Tuesday night from 10 p.m. to 12 a.m. to hear Abby, Baylee, and Lindsey play some music and give you a laugh.

Interested in joining WONY? Contact our TrainingDirector at[emailprotected]and dont forgetto Keep It Locked!

See the rest here:
WONY's DJ of the Week - The State Times

The Columbia Maison Franaise hosted dozens of audience members for a debate on navigating the limitations of tolerance and intolerance in an increasingly divided social landscape on Thursday evening.

Should We Tolerate the Intolerant? was a debate between Denis Lacorne and Bernard Harcourt, moderated by Sheri Berman, centered around todays increasingly divided political landscape and ambiguous definitions of tolerance and intolerance. It was co-sponsored by the Alliance Program; Columbia University Press; the European Institute; the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought; and the Institute for Religion, Culture, and Public Life.

Lacorne, a history professor at Sciences Po in Paris, has authored several political titles including The Limits of Tolerance: Enlightenment Values and Religious Fanaticism. Harcourt is a law and political science professor at the Law School, and has authored The Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own Citizens. Berman is a political science professor at Barnard and the author of Democracy and Dictatorship: From the Ancien Regime to the Present Day.

Berman initiated the conversation by gauging the panelists definitions of tolerance and intolerance, two terms that would remain central and contested throughout the conversation. Lacorne drew on historical context and defined tolerance in terms of constitutional and natural rights that were introduced by the end of the 18th century.

Harcourt challenged the notion of non-restricted tolerance by claiming that speech can never be completely free, citing Columbia as a site of restricted speech.

For instance, on a campus like Columbia, there isnt anything like free speech; its not free. There are always attachments: Its funded by an organization that receives money from the University or another organization. It costs money to bring in speakers, etc. And all of that is regulated, where you get space to have your speech, etc., Harcourt said.

The theme of societal regulations of speech permeated much of the remainder of their conversation, with Lacorne noting, [Theres] nothing rigid about [what speech is allowed], and norms of behavior are also changing all the time.

When Berman urged the panelists to name the specific conditions under which something would be deemed intolerable in todays society, Harcourt highlighted current impacts and ramifications of the past and said people should address the issues of today with an understanding of the histories of oppression that precede.

What we should do is try to address historical legacies of oppression. In other words, that today, we live in a time that is the product of a series of oppressive relations. ... Those legacies continue, we live with them, Harcourt said.

In response to an audience members question regarding whose responsibility it is to define and combat intolerance, Harcourt stated, It is an exercise for civil society, for us, to not be tolerant toward intolerable conditions of exploitation, of inequality.

Staff writer Defne Egbo can be contacted at defne.egbo@columbiaspectator.com. Follow the Spectator on Twitter @ColumbiaSpec.

See the article here:
Should We Tolerate the Intolerant?: a debate on the limits of free speech and tolerance - CU Columbia Spectator

SALT LAKE CITY Not cinema. Theme parks. Despicable.

Decorated filmmakers Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have pointed opinions about superhero movies. The directors behind Taxi Driver and The Godfather, respectively, have both made headlines in the past few weeks for sharing their critical opinions of Marvel movies in particular.

On Monday, Scorsese penned an opinion piece for The New York Times, writing that franchise films have become the primary source of entertainment making this a difficult time in the movie industry.

Theres worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and theres cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but thats becoming increasingly rare, Scorsese writes. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other. For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.

The stars and directors of Marvel movies, and (of course) social media users, fired back.

The debate started with an interview Scorsese gave to Empire magazine in early October. Stating his belief that Marvel movies are not cinema and that they are more like theme parks, Scorsese told Empire these films are not the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.

Coppola took things a step further, saying in a recent interview that he calls superhero movies despicable, according to The Guardian.

When Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, hes right, Coppola said, adding that we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration.

What is it about superhero movies that are so polarizing? Marvel turning into such a pop culture behemoth probably has something to do with it. Theres a sort of David-versus-Goliath element to many of the comments from Marvel detractors, a feeling that cinema and the independent filmmakers behind riskier projects need to be defended from the encroachment of men (and women) in capes.

But are they right? Are Marvel movies really just a cinematic amusement park, as Scorsese says, made only to entertain and take our money? Or are they capable of imparting enlightenment, knowledge and inspiration what Coppola defines as cinema?

A lower art form?

The debate over what type of movies can be labeled cinema or art is nothing new.

Genre films, which include fantasy or science fiction (like superhero movies), as well as anything from horror to romance to Western, tend to be looked down upon, according to Jeffrey A. Brown, an associate professor of popular culture at Bowling Green State University and author of The Modern Superhero in Film and Television.

Critics often dismiss horror as a genre worthy of critical acclaim. A recent movement in Hollywood has referred to certain films that are well-received by critics as elevated horror like Get Out or Hereditary in order to distinguish them from more run-of-the-mill horror films (like the Scream franchise), according to an article from BBC last year.

Whenever a horror movie makes a splash ... there is invariably an article calling it smart or elevated or art house horror, novelist and critic Anne Billson tweeted. They hate horror SO MUCH they have to frame its hits as something else.

Superhero movies seem to be in the same boat, and it doesnt help that their source material comic books have also been traditionally viewed as a lower art form. The very first superhero adaptations were considered B movies, Matthew McAllister, a professor of media studies at Pennsylvania State University, told the Deseret News.

You know, you release them to kids, you have third-rate stars, you make them quickly, the dialogue is hackneyed.

Superhero movies and reception

It wasnt until the 1970s and 80s that Hollywood began to see any real potential in superheroes. Superman, starring Christopher Reeve in 1978, and Tim Burtons Batman in 1989 were game-changers for the genre, McAllister said.

Superman brought in big stars like Marlon Brando and planned sequels, McAllister said. And Batman brought in all the merchandise.

But even still, the success of these films were seen more as one-off events than part of a larger trend toward superheroes in general. Though both Superman and Batman had sequels, they didnt do as well at the box office.

It wasnt until the launch of the X-Men franchise in 2000 and particularly Sam Raimis Spiderman in 2002 that superheroes really began to take off. Spiderman, starring Tobey Maguire, was the first summer blockbuster after 9/11. It was an unprecedented hit, breaking box-office records when it took in $114.8 million after just three days in theaters.

The popularity of superhero movies at this time is no coincidence. Their rise has coincided with the 9/11 era, and superheroes that come in and save the day serve a cultural purpose during this moment of American history, Brown said, adding that when the world is in a state of disorder, it can be inspiring to watch a clear-cut battle between forces of good and evil and see the good guys triumph.

Other superhero films quickly followed in the wake of Spiderman, including two Spiderman sequels, more entries in the X-Men franchise and Christopher Nolans Batman Begins in 2005. There were also less-successful films such as Daredevil, Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four.

But the game changed again in 2008, when Marvel Studios released a film about Iron Man a lesser-known hero. Not only was the film wildly successful, but Marvel released it with an endgame in mind: Iron Man was only part of a larger picture, phase one of a larger wave of superhero movies to come.

This forethought has defined the superhero genre ever since. Superhero films are no longer just series both Marvel and DC refer to their collection of films as a universe. And earlier this year, Avengers: Endgame broke box office records to become the highest-grossing film in history, earning more than $2.7 billion worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo.

These are things that are not planned by the year, McAllister said. Theyre planned by the decade.

The dangerous side of superhero movie success

With movies like Avengers: Endgame dominating the box office (seven of the top 11 highest-grossing films in 2018 were superhero movies, according to reports), the concern from filmmakers like Coppola and Scorsese is understandable.

Superheroes are taking over Hollywood, often at the expense of other types of films. Many independent filmmakers are seeing this play out as studios are unwilling to spend money on what they view as riskier projects.

Even Scorsese said hes been affected. The director worked with Netflix rather than a more traditional movie studio to release his newest film The Irishman. The film will have a limited theatrical release before moving to the streaming service in late November. In his New York Times op-ed, Scorsese implied that at least part of the reason for the shorter theatrical release of The Irishman has to do with an overabundance of superheroes.

Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would, Scorsese wrote. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

In a somewhat surprising move, Marvel superheroes like Benedict Cumberbatch have stepped into the ring and come to Scorseses defense.

I know theres been a lot of debate recently with these very fine filmmakers coming to the fore saying that these film franchises are taking over everything, Cumberbatch said, according to the Guardian. And I agree, you know. We dont want one king to rule it all and have a kind of monopoly. ... We should really look into continuing to support auteur filmmakers at every level.

What does this mean for cinema?

With their dominance in the industry, should Marvel movies be considered cinema?

If we follow Coppolas definition that we gain some enlightenment, some knowledge, or some inspiration from cinema, then it possibly can.

The lessons are there, Brown said, adding that sometimes theyre easy to miss because theyre wrapped up in entertainment.

He pointed to Black Panther a film that grapples with racial issues and frustrations and also the recently released Joker that deals with mental health issues. But other films may be more subtle about their treatment of serious topics.

At a basic level, the stories are about right and wrong, good and evil, how people should behave, Brown said. There are lessons in there about justice, about the law, about how we should treat each other. And theyre wrapped up in explosions and a lot of fun, and characters that can fly, which just makes it a lot more digestible.

But while there are valuable lessons to be gained from superhero films, McAllister said the oversaturation of the market and Hollywoods love affair with superheroes could be problematic.

Are they the only lessons we can learn from film? Are they the only ways we can get excited about movies? I think the answer is no, he said. Theres a lot of ways we can learn from film, and a lot of ways we can get excited. But are those other ways getting shut out?

Here is the original post:
Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have slammed Marvel movies. But theyre missing the point - Deseret News

Catholic World News

November 05, 2019

Continue to this story on Vatican Press Office

CWN Editor's Note: Addressing participants in a forum organized by the International Federation of Catholic Universities, Pope Francis said, Education reduced to mere technical instruction or to mere information becomes a ruptured education. To believe that we can transmit knowledge by abstracting from its ethical dimension would be to abandon the task of teaching.

For all current news, visit our News home page.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

Follow this link:
'It is necessary to overcome the legacy of the Enlightenment,' Pope tells leaders of Catholic universities : News Headlines - Catholic Culture

Free speech is a right promised to all Americans through the Constitution and is an integral part of democracy which must be protected. But too often, people have the wrong idea about free speech.

In extreme instances, they believe it gets them off scot-free every time they commit the crime of hate speech. More often, though, pleading ones right to free speech allows people to spout alternative facts and baseless theories without consequences. Why is this wrong? Why isnt this free speech?

To understand that, we must examine the roots of free speech. In Western society, the legal protection of free speech stems from the Enlightenment movement. The Enlightenment was brought about by a revolution in science which caused a mix of conflicting ideas and academic debate never seen before. The debate in the international scientific community led to the discussion and study of non-scientific realms of knowledge namely, society and politics.

Enlightenment thinkers believed in rationalism, the idea that nothing could be accepted on faith and everything had to be backed up with reason. And they believed through rationalism, they could move forward humanities understanding of everything, creating better societies and better people.

These were the ideals the United States was founded upon. Our founders believed the legal protection of free speech would engender the debate and discussion of ideas. Debate tears apart bad ideas, preventing them from being implemented in any way. Debate also validates good ideas because when no one can find fault with an idea, there is no reason not to implement it.

Editorial Board: Free speech and power in a protest-driven eraFreedom of speech has been an integral principle in American jurisprudence since our countrys conception. Generally, it is an idea Read

Everyone who enters a discussion with either good or bad ideas comes out better informed and with an understanding of what the best plan of action is. In a democratic form of government, we want debate because it makes the ideas government implement better. Free speech is a tool that improves governance.

The legal protection of free speech was created with the intention of encouraging people to back up with evidence their ideas in debate, free of the fear of consequences. It was not created to let people yell anything from misleading statements to outright hate speech.

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents has proposed policy that would mandate suspension or expulsion of students who repeatedly disrupt free speech on campus. This was encouraged by efforts in the State Legislature by Republicans to protect free speech. But the measures taken will only discourage free speech.

The conservative Charles Koch Institute even recently voiced its objection to the policy in an official statement.

Punishing students for their expression is not how you promote free speech, the statement said. Imposing mandatory minimum punishments without even defining for students what actions will subject them to that punishment will stifle campus dialogue rather than enrich it.

Hate speech is free speech its time that changesPresident Donald Trump signed an executive order March 21 that would withhold federal funding from universities that do not protect Read

It is my hope that this influential conservative group will convince other conservatives to encourage more free speech. The ability to speak freely is not a political issue it is the basis of democratic politics, and therefore should be promoted by everyone who takes part in them. Those who impede free speech pose a danger to democracy.

I believe this is why the rule has been proposed. The Board, much like the Koch Institute, wants free speech protected from people who impede it. Their intentions are good, but there are three major issues with it.

One, disruption can take many forms and is sometimes justified and no formal definition of disruption has been created. There is no firmly stated red line where one crosses from a heated discussion between two people, to one person disrupting the other persons ability to speak.

This is a problem because students will be discouraged from debate if they dont know at what point they run the risk of getting kicked out of school. Debate is never something that should be discouraged at an academic institution.

Two, disruption is a form of protest and banning it is undemocratic. I would support the proposal if it stated in clear terms the only forms of disruption banned were physically disrupting someone speaking freely. Otherwise, the rule could be misinterpreted to stop peaceful protest by students, of people they dont agree with. This would create a culture where we all keep our opinions to ourselves, further isolating people who hold different beliefs.

War of words: Proposed legislation reignites tensions on campus over free speechFires, pepper spray, smashed windows, punches, assaults, riots, domestic terrorism all are results of recent protests across the nation Read

Third, some forms of speech deserve to be disrupted. Lies, misleading statements and hate speech should not be protected under any circumstance. People saying these things will scream at the top of their lungs that Free speech is my right! These people use their ability to speak freely to insult and mislead, not to debate with the intention of finding the best ideas.

Their rude and/or derogatory words should get them punished for disturbing the peace. Will this rule protect hate-filled people who hide behind their false notion of free speech? That should not be its intention.

But it is possible that students rightfully opposing a man spouting hate speech could be accused of disruption of free speech by that same man when the police show up, getting them kicked out of school, and getting him out of whatever fine or imprisonment he actually deserved. While this is unlikely, the prospect would discourage students from confronting these abusers of free speech.

This rule would be detrimental for UW. It would reduce dialogue, diversity of ideas and debate the whole point of free speech while emboldening those who misuse free speech to spread hate and lies.

Board of Regents: Do you really want to create a campus where students are afraid to voice their opinions?

Harry Quick ([emailprotected]) is a freshman studying economics.

See more here:
Board of Regents' 'protection' of free speech actually does exact opposite - The Badger Herald