How to Assess the New Legal Risks of Your DEI Policies; Harvard Business Review (HBR), February 27, 2025

Joan C. Williams, Laura J. Maechtlen and Jamie Dolkas, Harvard Business Review (HBR); How to Assess the New Legal Risks of Your DEI Policies

"With a series of executive orders, the Trump administration has put a target on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. As of this writing, key portions have been enjoined by a federal court. Yet the administration has signaled its intention to make noncompliance so punitive that many companies still are scrambling to review their DEI programs and practices for EO compliance.

In the rush, two key facts are getting lost in the shuffle. The first is that core federal and state equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws have not changed. Trump’s executive orders did end federal contractor affirmative action programs, and Trump can direct federal employees to take certain actions against “illegal” DEI policies and programs. But what is “illegal” under core EEO laws today hasn’t changed from before President Trump took office. This highlights that what companies are concerned about is not entirely legal risk, but regulatory and litigation risk.

The second core fact is that companies have a First Amendment right to express their views on DEI. This right was affirmed in the spring of 2024 by a conservative-leaning panel of judges of the Eleventh Circuit, which struck down Florida’s prohibiting companies from expressing certain ideas in DEI trainings.

But with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s February 5th memo directing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division “to investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector,” leaders are understandably and urgently looking for guidance on how to pursue their lawful, fair, and business-driven DEI initiatives."

Jeff Bezos’s Hypocritical Assertion of Power; The Atlantic, February 26, 2025

Joshua Benton, The Atlantic; 

Jeff Bezos’s Hypocritical Assertion of Power

His decision will only make The Washington Post a weaker institution. 

"But the scale of the hypocrisy on display here is eye-watering, and this decision can only make the Post a weaker institution.

Let’s get the motivation out of the way. This is the same Jeff Bezos who decided to cancel the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris just before the election—a move that led more than 250,000 paying Post readers to cancel their subscriptions within days. The same Bezos who flew to Mar-a-Lago to cozy up to Donald Trump after the election. The same Bezos whose Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and paid $40 million for a Melania Trump documentary—the most it had ever paid for a doc, nearly three times what any other studio offered, and more than 70 percent of whichwill go directly into Trump’s pockets. All of that cash seems to have served as a sort of personal seat license for Bezos, earning him a spot right behind the president at the inauguration. The tech aristocracy’s rightward turn is by now a familiar theme of the postelection period, and it doesn’t take much brain power to see today’s announcement as part of the same shift."

Dying in Darkness: Jeff Bezos Turns Out the Lights in the Washington Post’s Opinion Section; Politico, February 26, 2025

MICHAEL SCHAFFER , Politico; Dying in Darkness: Jeff Bezos Turns Out the Lights in the Washington Post’s Opinion Section

"In personally announcing that he was dramatically re-orienting the editorial line, and in fact wouldn’t even run dissenting views, Bezos added another sharp example to a narrative that represents a grave threat to the Post’s image: The idea that its owner is messing around with the product in order to curry favor with his new pal Donald Trump, who has the power to withhold contracts from Amazon and other Bezos companies.

The paper’s image is not some abstract question for journalism-school professors. It’s a matter of dollars and cents. If readers don’t trust a publication’s name, no amount of Pulitzer-worthy scoops will fix it. For Bezos, a guy who believes that the Post needs to gain a broad-based audience, it’s a baffling blind spot...

Owners may get the final say at publications they own, but the wisest among them have let their newsrooms and editorial boards make their own decisions without fear or favor. That’s to prevent the very impression that Bezos is making — that of a mogul trying to disguise his own predilections as independent thought...

Yet even as leadership talked about amping up readership, the owner personally alienated real and potential readers: first by spiking the endorsement, then by showing up in the line of moguls at Trump’s inauguration and now by declaring that the publication would have one editorial line for all of its contributors. It all made his publication look wimpy, or possibly corrupt.

Instead of being an occasionally fussy repository of mostly mainstream points of view, the venerable publication’s opinion pages now risk looking like a vessel for a very rich owner to curry favor with the man who runs the government. It’s going to be hard to keep that image from sticking to the whole organization — including the non-wimpy, non-corrupt reporting corps that keep digging up scoops on the administration.

Bezos, of all people, should know this: He’s the branding whiz who came up with “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Among many journalists, Wednesday’s bombshell announcement is being debated as a matter of media ethics: Was Bezos within his rights as an owner to call the tune on opinion matters? Or was this type of process meddling a violation of norms that go back at least to the 1950s?...

“I am of America and for America, and proud to be so,” he added. “Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical; it drives creativity, invention and prosperity.”

Sounds good late at night in the dorm room. But does said freedom include, say, the freedom to start a union at an Amazon warehouse? Or run a business without worrying that some monopolistic e-commerce behemoth is going to drive you under? Come to think of it, these sound like great subjects for energetic debate on a pluralistic op-ed page somewhere. Too bad Bezos, instead of embracing the great American history of arguing about freedom, announced that he’s not so keen on debate."

It's Copyright Week 2025: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 27, 2025

 KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It's Copyright Week 2025: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation 

We continue to fight for a version of copyright that does what it is supposed to. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and advocate a set of principles of copyright law. This year’s issues are: 

• Monday: Copyright Policy Should Be Made in the Open With Input From Everyone: Copyright is not a niche concern. It affects everyone’s experience online, therefore laws and policy should be made in the open and with users’ concerns represented and taken into account. 

• Tuesday: Copyright Enforcement as a Tool of Censorship: Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right essential to a functioning democracy. Copyright should encourage more speech, not act as a legal cudgel to silence it.  

• Wednesday: Device and Digital Ownership: As the things we buy increasingly exist either in digital form or as devices with software, we also find ourselves subject to onerous licensing agreements and technological restrictions. If you buy something, you should be able to truly own it – meaning you can learn how it works, repair it, remove unwanted features, or tinker with it to make it work in a new way.  

• Thursday: The Preservation and Sharing of Information and Culture:Copyright often blocks the preservation and sharing of information and culture, traditionally in the public interest. Copyright law and policy should encourage and not discourage the saving and sharing of information. 

• Friday: Free Expression and Fair Use: Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Fair use makes it possible for us to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture.  

Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek." 

CSotD: Telnaes is only unemployed, not gone; The Daily Cartoonist, January 4, 2025

MIKE PETERSON, The Daily Cartoonist; CSotD: Telnaes is only unemployed, not gone

"We try to avoid duplication and stepping on each other’s toes around here, and by now you’ve likely seen DD Degg’s coverage of Ann Telnaes’ resignation from the Washington Post. And if you haven’t seen his coverage here, you’ve almost certainly seen some coverage because it is all over the Internet, with regret and praise coming from around the globe. As of seven this morning, her Substack announcement had 5,307 likes and had been shared 910 times...

Seeing these pieces on the importance of political cartooning and press freedom, it’s easy to recognize how inconsistent it would have been for her to accept the squelching of her voice by the Post’s current management.

Telnaes will no longer be on the pages of the Washington Post, but perhaps going out into the wider world will make her voice heard by a more diverse audience, particularly if the Post continues to cater to the new administration while hemorrhaging both talent and readership.

She’ll need support on her Substack, by which I mean subscriptions, not just applause, and if you haven’t been supporting small and local media outlets, this is an excellent place to start. 

The cartoon her editor refused to run, which was the final straw that induced her to walk away from a prestigious and well-paying job, offers the very reasonable suggestion that the billionaires who control major media are selling out to the administration, not just with obedience but in several cases with substantial financial contributions.

And here’s something else they’d just as soon not hear anyone say: It seems that major media may be working to gain influence with the wrong people, that they’re making friends with oligarchs but losing touch with their actual customers...

Samizdat is a term that defined underground writings — mimeographed or photocopied — that circulated in the Soviet Union as it began to totter and crash. In our country, in these times, we’re seeing the growth of Substacks and other small-scale publishing by people who, like Ann Telnaes, want to say what they think needs to be said, without being filtered and both-sidesed and required to be “fair and balanced” by management that is more interested in marketing than in journalism.

Supporting small publishers and individual writers matters. The big boys will get along with or without you, but the voices we need to hear need backing."

While the Court Fights Over AI and Copyright Continue, Congress and States Focus On Digital Replicas: 2024 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 27, 2024

 CORYNNE MCSHERRY, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ; While the Court Fights Over AI and Copyright Continue, Congress and States Focus On Digital Replicas: 2024 in Review

"These state laws are a done deal, so we’ll just have to see how they play out. At the federal level, however, we still have a chance to steer policymakers in the right direction.  

We get it–everyone should be able to prevent unfair and deceptive commercial exploitation of their personas. But expanded property rights are not the way to do it. If Congress really wants to protect performers and ordinary people from deceptive or exploitative uses of their images and voice, it should take a precise, careful and practical approach that avoids potential collateral damage to free expression, competition, and innovation."

Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist; artnet, November 14, 2024

Jo Lawson-Tancred , artnet; Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist

"The work by the artist known as Odee had publicly impersonated Iceland’s biggest fishing company Samherji, issuing a fake apology for its role in the so-called “fishrot” corruption scandal of 2019. In his ruling, the judge described the artwork as “an instrument of fraud, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood.”

The case never went to trial but the artist said he plans to appeal the judgement. His defenders have argued that any punitive action taken against him could result in a “chilling effect” that discourages artist’s from daring to critique big corporations for fear of legal action.

Samherji sued Odee, the moniker for 41-year-old Icelandic artist Oddur Fridriksson, over We’re Sorry (2023), for which Odee created the website samherji.co.uk, imitating the company’s brand identity. On this platform, he issued the statement: “Samherji Apologizes, Pledges Restitution and Cooperation with Authorities.”

In Samherji’s complaint filed in London’s high court, it accused Odee of trademark infringement and malicious falsehood. The company’s lawyers applied for a summary judgement to avoid a trial."

Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright; The New York Times, January 26, 2024

Matt Stevens, The New York Times; Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright

"The artist Richard Prince agreed to pay at least $650,000 to two photographers whose images he had incorporated in his own work, ending a long-running copyright dispute that had been closely monitored by the art world...

Brian Sexton, a lawyer for Prince, said the artist wanted to protect free expression and have copyright law catch up to changing technology...

Marriott said the judgments showed that copyright law still provided meaningful protection to creators and that the internet was not a copying free-for-all.

“There is not a fair use exception to copyright law that applies to the famous and another that applies to everyone else,” he said."

Books under attack, then and now; MIT News, October 26, 2023

Brigham Fay | MIT Libraries, MIT News; Books under attack, then and now

"Richard Ovenden was dressed appropriately for the start of Banned Books Week. He proudly displayed the American Library Association’s “Free people read freely” T-shirt as he approached the podium at Hayden Library on Oct. 2. Ovenden, Bodley’s Librarian at the University of Oxford, spoke about the willful destruction of recorded knowledge for an event titled “Book Wars,” the inaugural event in a new series called Conversations on Academic Freedom and Expression (CAFE), a collaboration between the MIT Libraries and History at MIT. 

“The idea for CAFE is to introduce the MIT community to the broader landscape of what’s going on in the world of academic freedom and free expression, beyond some of our local exchanges,” says Malick Ghachem, history professor and department head and a member of MIT’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression. 

“The libraries were a natural partner for the CAFE series,” says Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries. “The value of free and open access to information underpins everything we do.” 

Ovenden, who writes extensively on libraries, archives, and information management, is the author of “Burning the Books: A History of the Deliberate Destruction of Knowledge,” which was shortlisted for the Wolfson History Prize in 2021. In his MIT talk he provided a historical overview of attacks on libraries — from the library of Ashurbanipal in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh (now northern Iraq), destroyed by fire in 612 BC, to book burning under the Nazi regime to current efforts across the United States to remove or restrict access to books.

In spite of this history of loss, Ovenden finds hope in “the human impulse to preserve, to pass on, to bear witness, to allow for diverse ideas to thrive.” He detailed the extraordinary actions people have taken to save knowledge, citing the “Paper Brigade,” a forced labor unit of poets and intellectuals in Nazi-occupied Vilnius who smuggled and hid rare books and manuscripts, and the tragic death of Aida Buturovic, a 32-year-old librarian who was killed as she tried to rescue books during the 1992 assault on the National and University Library in Sarajevo.

Ovenden concluded by making the case that libraries and archives are the infrastructure for democracy — institutions dedicated not only to education, but to safeguarding the rights of citizens, providing reference points for facts and truth, preserving identity, and enabling a diversity of views. Despite millennia of attacks, libraries continue to fight back, most recently with public libraries expanding digital access to combat book bans nationwide. 

Following Ovenden’s talk, Ghachem led a discussion and audience Q&A that touched on the connections between book bans and so-called “cancel culture,” how censorship itself is used as a means of expressing political views, and growing distrust of expertise.  

The CAFE series is one of several opportunities to engage the Institute community that emerged from the Report of the MIT Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression. Ghachem also started a new first-year advising seminar, “Free Expression, Pluralism, and the University,” and the Institute Community and Equity Office launched Dialogues Across Difference: Building Community at MIT. A second CAFE event is being planned for the spring term. 

“At this moment in our history, we should try to encourage discussion, and not debate,” said Ovenden. “We must try to move away from this idea that it’s a contest, that it’s a battle, and encourage and foster the idea of listening and discussion. And that's all part of the deliberation that I think is necessary for a healthy society.”"

Florida school district and state ed leaders sued over restricting kids book on penguins; Politico, June 20, 2023

 ANDREW ATTERBURY, Politico; Florida school district and state ed leaders sued over restricting kids book on penguins

"A group of students alongside the authors of a children’s book centered on a penguin family with two fathers sued a central Florida school district and top state education officials Tuesday claiming that limiting its availability is a violation of free expression.

The lawsuit, one of several challenging Florida’s policies for launching local book objections, aims to require Lake County officials to make the book — “And Tango Makes Three” — available to all students."

21st-century editors should keep their hands off of 20th-century books; The Washington Post, June 12, 2023

 Editorial Board, The Washington Post; 21st-century editors should keep their hands off of 20th-century books

"A number of beloved novels, for both children and adults, are being “retouched” — updated to remove overtly racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language. Publishers and literary estates — including those of best-selling mystery writer Agatha Christie, children’s author Roald Dahl and James Bond creator Ian Fleming — argue these changes will ensure, in the words of the Dahl estate, that “wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.”

But it’s a threat to free expression, to historical honesty and, indeed, to readers themselves for contemporary editors to comb through works of fiction written at different moments and rewrite them for today’s mind-set, particularly with little explanation of process or limiting principles. The trend raises uncomfortable questions about authorship and authenticity, and it ignores the reality that texts are more than consumer goods or sources of entertainment in the present. They are also cultural artifacts that attest to the moment in which they were written — the good and the bad...

Literature is often meant to be provocative. Stripping it of any potential to offend dilutes its strength, especially in a moment when there is a concerted effort in this country to limit what can be read and taught. Publishers need not reprint books with no acknowledgment of potentially offensive contents. They can treat the publication of such texts as opportunities to explain why they read the way they do, in introductions and in footnotes. And, if publishers see little option but to change wording, they should at least explain to readers what they are changing and why."

Zoom Panel: Haven’t We Been Here Before: A Panel Discussion on Banning LGBTQIA+ Books. Wednesday, April 5. 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT. University of Pittsburgh

Haven’t We Been Here Before: A Panel Discussion on Banning LGBTQIA+ Books. Wednesday, April 5. 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT. University of Pittsburgh

https://calendar.pitt.edu/event/been_here_before#.ZCgmRi-B2_U

[This session will be live via Zoom and also recorded for asynchronous viewing, following processing by Pitt. See registration link.]

There has been a recent uptick in attempts to remove or ban certain books from schools, public libraries and other educational spaces. In 2022 alone, 4 in 10 banned books contained LGBTQIA+ themes and representation, according to PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works to defend and celebrate free expression through the advancement of literature and human rights. 

Join the University Library System and the Pitt Queer Professionals for a lively virtual panel discussion with education, literary and legal experts on intellectual freedom and the societal impact of banning books. Guest panelists will be Dr. James “Kip” Currier, Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information (SCI) in the Information Culture and Data Stewardship (ICDS) Department, Dr. Katrina Bartow Jacobs, Associate Professor of Practice of Language, Literacy, and Culture within the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading and Jeff Trexler, Interim Director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an American non-profit organization formed to protect the First Amendment rights of comics creators, publishers, and retailers. The panel will be moderated by Acacia O’Connor (they/them/theirs) currently the University’s Executive Director of Social Media, and former manager of the Kids’ Right to Read Project of the National Coalition Against Censorship.  

Dial-In Information

Register at https://pitt.libcal.com/event/10570583Links to an external site.

Wednesday, April 5 at 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

 Virtual Event

Search entries or author Filter replies by unreadUnread

How a Debut Graphic Memoir Became the Most Banned Book in the Country; The New York Times, May 1, 2022

Alexandra Alter , The New York Times; How a Debut Graphic Memoir Became the Most Banned Book in the Country

Maia Kobabe’s book “Gender Queer,” about coming out as nonbinary, landed the author at the center of a battle over which books belong in schools, and who gets to make that decision.

"Suddenly, Kobabe was at the center of a nationwide battle over which books belong in schools — and who gets to make that decision. The debate, raging in school board meetings and town halls, is dividing communities around the country and pushing libraries to the front lines of a simmering culture war. And in 2021, when book banning efforts soared, “Gender Queer” became the most challenged book in the United States, according to the American Library Association and the free speech organization PEN.

Many of the titles that have been challenged or banned recently are by or about Black and L.G.B.T.Q. people, both groups said.

“‘Gender Queer’ ends up at the center of this because it is a graphic novel, and because it is dealing with sexuality at the time when that’s become taboo,” said Jonathan Friedman, the director of free expression and education at PEN America. “There’s definitely an element of anti L.G.B.T.Q.+ backlash.”"

E.U.’s Top Court Rules Against Facebook in Global Takedown Case; The New York Times, October 3, 2019

Adam Satariano, The New York Times; E.U.’s Top Court Rules Against Facebook in Global Takedown Case

"The case has been closely watched because of its potential ripple effects for regulating internet content. The enforcement of defamation, libel and privacy laws varies from country to country, with language and behavior that is allowed in one nation prohibited in another. The court’s decision highlights the difficulty of creating uniform standards to govern an inherently borderless web and then enforcing them.

Facebook and other critics have warned that letting a single nation force an internet platform to delete material elsewhere would hurt free expression...

Last week, the European Court of Justice limited the reach of the European privacy law known as the “right to be forgotten,” which allows European citizens to demand Google remove links to sensitive personal data from search results. The court said Google could not be ordered to remove links to websites globally, except in certain circumstances when weighed against the rights to free expression and the public’s right to information."

Time's 2018 'Person of the Year' is killed and imprisoned journalists; NBC News, Decemeber 11, 2018

Tim Stelloh, NBC News; Time's 2018 'Person of the Year' is killed and imprisoned journalists

""The Guardians."

That's what Time magazine is calling the journalists behind 2018's "Person of the Year," which was revealed exclusively Tuesday morning on "Today."

With a record number of reporters behind bars around the planet — the Committee to Protect Journalists documented 262 cases in 2017 — an avalanche of misinformation on social media and government officials from the United States to the Philippines dismissing critical, real reporting as "fake news," Time is spotlighting a handful of journalists who have one thing in common: They were targeted for their work.

For them, pursuing the truth has meant prison and harassment. In some cases, it has meant death."

EU Members Push For Private Censorship Of Terrorist Content On The Internet; Intellectual Property Watch, December 6, 2018

Monika Ermert, Intellectual Property Watch; EU Members Push For Private Censorship Of Terrorist Content On The Internet

"According to the planned regulation on preventing-terrorist-content-online hosters, cloud providers and all sorts of internet platform providers must delete terrorist content upon receiving orders from Europol or relevant member state law enforcement agencies in just one hour.

But they would also have to make their own assessments about the terrorist nature of content upon referrals by the authorities and even take proactive steps for “detecting, identifying, and expeditiously removing or disabling access to terrorist content” (see paragraph 6 of the draft text)."

Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People; Comic Book Resources, November 9, 2018

Brandon Zachary, Comic Book Resources; Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People

[Kip Currier: With his singular artistic style and rapier insights, Rob Rogers is truly one of America's great political cartoonists and satirists.

Rogers was treated abysmally by the owners and management of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was fired from the paper this year; see this Nov. 4 article in The Washington Post for more background.

It's good to see that his newest compilation Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey will be available for purchase soon.]


"The Pulitzer Prize winner was a 25-year veteran of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette before being unceremoniously fired earlier this year, purportedly because his cartoons were regularly critical of President Trump and his policies.

Titled Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey, the 184-page collection will be released Dec. 11 through the publisher's IDW Limited imprint...

“Satire is the ultimate expression of free speech," Rogers said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "[It] reminds us that we live in a healthy democracy. But we are living in a time like no other in our country’s history, a time when the media is under attack, a time of extreme partisanship. We need satire and editorial cartoons more now than ever.”"

Iowa man burns children's books from public library to protest Orange City Pride; Des Moines Register, October 22, 2018

Shelby Fleig, Des Moines Register; Iowa man burns children's books from public library to protest Orange City Pride

[Kip Currier: The American Library Association's (ALA) Banned Books Week was last month. It's an annual event, started in 1982 by the late Judith Krug, a staunch intellectual freedom advocate, to raise awareness of the importance of intellectual freedom and efforts by some to ban books.

The theme for this year's event is "Banning Books Silences Stories". This Des Moines Register article and video about a man who videotaped himself burning several LGBTQ-themed books owned by a public library in Iowa is a tangible example of attempts to silence the stories of others.

Watch this 3 minute 2012 Banned Books Week video by veteran journalist Bill Moyers for a still-relevant response regarding, as Moyers puts it, "self-deputized vigilantes".]

"The Orange City Public Library said it's exploring legal options after a northwest Iowa man rented and then publicly burned several children's books Friday.

The second annual OC Pride kicked off Friday with a story time for kids, a schedule shows. About an hour before the event, Paul Dorr started a live Facebook video, in which he stood near the Prairie Winds Event Center. The 27-minute video ends with Dorr throwing at least four books with LGBTQ themes that he claimed he rented from the public library into a burning trash can."

The world has a question for the White House: When do murders matter?; The Washington Post, October 19, 2018

Emily Rauhala, and Anton Troianovski, The Washington Post; The world has a question for the White House: When do murders matter?

[Kip Currier: The price of freedom of speech and a free press can be incredibly high. This was indelibly illuminated these past few weeks via the brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, whose last piece What the Arab world needs most is free expression was published this week in The Washington Post, as well as via subsequent ham-handed and obfuscatory cover-up tactics by the responsible "masterminds", perpetrators, accomplices, and apologists, both domestic and global.

It's equally important that we remember other fact-seekers who have suffered and continue to suffer injustice and death for seeking and reporting information: Panama Papers investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia who was killed last year in a bomb blast while investigating corruption in Malta; Viktoria Marinova who was reporting on corruption and was raped and killed this month in Bulgaria; Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo who were shedding light on the plight of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims and were recently sentenced to 7 years in prison for collecting and obtaining "confidential documents"; and myriad others.

Every day, and especially at times like these when the world is watching the aftermath of efforts to silence reporter and free expression advocate Jamal Khashoggi, while, unintentionally and paradoxically, elevating him to a worldwide audience, what our leaders say--and don't say--is of profound importance in communicating our most cherished values, and where our "lines in the sand" are on free speech, free and independent presses, truth, accountability, and the value of human life. 

Leaders must remember that we and all of the world are watching to see what is done and is not done in matters of human rights and the rule of law. We must continue to hold them responsible for their action and inaction. History and future generations will as well.]

   

"For nearly three weeks, the world has watched President Trump downplay the disappearance and apparent slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and waited for the most powerful man in the world to act. They are waiting still.

Trump’s inconsistent and cautious remarks about the case have renewed questions about U.S. credibility and complicated the global response, emboldening adversaries such as Russia and China and discouraging robust action by traditional allies, according to analysts and former U.S. officials.

“This is a drastic break from American practice,” said Vali R. Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It signals a very different foreign policy that does not hold governments accountable for things that are outside normal legal or ethical parameters.”

“In effect,” he added, “The U.S. is setting a new standard for itself” — and in so doing, may be setting a new standard for the world."