New York City will pay a total of $180,000 to three Muslim women who were forced to take off their hijabs for mug shots, the Daily News has learned.Settlements in the three cases were filed Monday in Brooklyn federal court, with the lawsuits spurring new NYPD procedures on photographing people donning religious head coverings.The cases date back as far as 2012, when a Brooklyn high school girl identified as “G.E.” was arrested after a scuffle with two girls she thought were spreading rumors about her.The criminal case was dismissed, but it was the initial mug shots that mattered in the civil rights case that followed.
Source: Three women forced to take off hijabs for mugs settle with city – NY Daily News
Rose McGowan not only wants her cocaine charge dismissed, she’s going so far as to suggest that she was being targeted by people working for Harvey Weinstein, and he may be responsible for planting the drugs.According to a motion filed by McGowan’s attorney in Loudoun County, Virginia, and obtained by The Blast, her attorney argued that authorities have no evidence that McGowan ever possessed the cocaine that was found in her wallet after being left behind on a plane.The actress has already pled not guilty, but now her attorney says “There is simply no point in time at which the evidence places Ms. McGowan and the cocaine together in the same place,” and suggests that McGowan was targeted by “the underhanded targeting of Ms. McGowan” by Weinstein.They also argue that drug crimes occurring on an airplane should be handled in federal court, not state, so therefore should be thrown out.
Source: Rose McGowan Wants Drug Charge Dropped, Suggests Weinstein Set Her Up
There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9 under the title, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society: Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
Source: Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems? – Imprimis
Our relationship with animals is complex. There are some animals we treat very kindly; we keep them as pets, give them names, and take them to the doctor when they are sick. Other animals, in contrast, seem to not to deserve this privileged status; we use them as objects for human consumption, trade, involuntary experimental subjects, industrial equipment, or as sources of entertainment. Dogs are worth more than pigs, horses more than cows, cats more than rats, and by far the most worthy species of all is our own one. Philosophers have referred to this phenomenon of discriminating individuals on the basis of their species membership as speciesism (Singer, 1975). Some of them have argued that speciesism is a form of prejudice analogous to racism or sexism.Whether speciesism actually exists and whether it is related to other forms of prejudice isn’t just a philosophical question, however. Fundamentally, these are hypotheses about human psychology that can be explored and tested empirically. Yet surprisingly, speciesism has been almost entirely neglected by psychologists (apart from a few). There have been fewer than 30 publications in the last 70 years on this topic as revealed by a Web of Science search for the keywords speciesism and human-animal relations in all psychology journals. While this search may not be totally exhaustive, it pales in comparison to the almost 3’000 publications on the psychology of racism in the same time frame. The fact that psychology has neglected speciesism is strange, given the relevance of the topic (we all interact with animals or eat meat), the prevalence of the topic in philosophy, and the strong focus psychology puts on other types of apparent prejudice. Researching how we assign moral status to animals should be an obvious matter of investigation for psychology.Together with my colleagues Jim A.C. Everett and Nadira S. Faber, we recently published a paper on speciesism in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Caviola, Everett, & Faber, 2018). Our aim was to establish speciesism as a topic in the field. To that end, we developed a Speciesism Scale: a standardised, validated, and reliable measurement instrument that can assess the extent to which a person has speciesist views. Our research demonstrated that there is indeed a unique psychological construct — speciesism — that determines to what extent people discriminate individuals on the basis of their species membership. This construct is not captured by other measures of prejudice or prosociality and it shows some interesting properties.
Source: The Psychology of Speciesism: How We Privilege Certain Animals Over Others | Practical Ethics
Fifty Shades of Grey novels are more likely to be in abusive relationships, binge drink and sleep around.
Cohen says we should stop being caught up in the fantasy and focus on real issues
It might have sold more than 100 million copies and been translated into 52 languages. It might even lay claim to being the book that brought the terms ‘safe word’ and ‘genital clamps’ into our lexicon. But Fifty Shades of Grey has just had a good spanking.
This week, researchers from the Michigan State University supposedly found a correlation between young women who had read the erotic trilogy and cases of verbally abusive relationships, binge drinking, multiple sexual partners and eating disorders.
More than 650 female Michigan students aged 18-24 were sent a questionnaire about the books. Of those who’d read the first – and most famous – novel, a quarter were more likely to have a partner who shouted at them; 34 per cent were more likely to have a partner with ‘stalking tendencies’; and 75 per cent had used diet aids.
Source: Fifty Shades of Grey damaging young women? I beg to differ – Telegraph
Growing up, your best friend is the person who is always there for you and the one you share all your secrets and exploits with.But now there’s a growing movement to ban best friends.The movement isn’t a ban on friendship, it’s just geared towards having children broaden their friendship circles and become more inclusive.It’s a move a lot of educators think goes in the right direction.Rumored to have first started in Prince George’s South London school this push to breakup best friends is catching on, says clinical psychologist Dr. Barbara Greenberg.“There has been a movement in some American schools and European schools to ban the phrase ‘best friend,’” Greenberg said. “The idea of banning the phrase ‘best friends’ is a very intriguing social experiment.”And while it may be raising some eyebrows Greenberg who works with children and adolescents says there’s some good rationale behind it.
Source: Schools Consider Banning Best Friends To Foster Inclusive Environment « CBS New York
Paris (AFP) – Artificial intelligence could be deployed by dictators, criminals and terrorists to manipulate elections and use drones in terrorist attacks, more than two dozen experts said Wednesday as they sounded the alarm over misuse of the technology.In a 100-page analysis, they outlined a rapid growth in cybercrime and the use of “bots” to interfere with news gathering and penetrate social media among a host of plausible scenarios in the next five to 10 years.”Our report focuses on ways in which people could do deliberate harm with AI,” said Sean O hEigeartaigh, Executive Director of the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.”AI may pose new threats, or change the nature of existing threats, across cyber-, physical, and political security,” he told AFP.
Source: Top experts warn against ‘malicious use’ of AI