# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-worst-countries-for-gender-equality-ranked-by-perception

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Climate Change Denial Still Exists In The U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bretton Barber got in big trouble at school for a shirt. It wasn't that the 16-year-old stole a shirt or ruined somebody's shirt in a food fight. It was the words printed on a shirt he wore.

"International Terrorist," the shirt said, along with a picture of President George W. Bush.

People protesting against a possible war in Iraq have worn similar shirts, and carried signs with that message. But when Bretton wore the shirt to his high school, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the assistant principal gave him a choice: Turn the shirt inside-out or go home.

Brett, as the teenager is called by his friends, chose to go home, but he thinks the school was violating his right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

"I think freedom of speech should be protected at all times," he said, "but especially at times of war, when there's a possibility many people could die."

Brett's case is one of several instances around the country recently where kids speaking out against the war have been told, basically, to clam up.

Can school officials do that? What about the First Amendment, which establishes people's right to express their opinions? Don't kids have that right?

Well, yes and no.

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students are "persons," under our Constitution, and that their right to free speech does not end "at the schoolhouse gate."

That ruling came in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Some students had worn black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, and the school suspended them. The Supreme court decided the school district was wrong.

But school officials can stop students from speaking out, the Court said in Tinker, if they can show that the student's action significantly "disrupt(s) the work and discipline of the school."

That's the argument school officials are making in Brett's case.

Brett's shirt "might have stirred up emotions, it might have stirred up controversy," said David Mustonen, a spokesman for the Dearborn schools. "An Osama bin Laden shirt or a Saddam Hussein shirt would have also been considered a potential problem."

"Calling someone a terrorist," Mustonen said, "it's the same as if you called someone a name."

It's not always easy to decide when free speech crosses the line and becomes something else that can be regulated -- "disruption of school" or "workplace harassment." It can't just be expressing opinions that bug people, the law says.

"Making people angry or unhappy is something that free speech often does," said Arthur Spitzer, of the Washington area chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

When adults speak out at work, they can run into the same problems that kids do in school. If an adult wore the George Bush "International Terrorist" shirt to the office and a boss told him to take it off, that would be legal, Spitzer said, as long as it's a private company and not a government agency.

"A kid in school has much more in the way of free speech rights than an employee at The Washington Post," Spitzer said.

For government workers, the law says about the same thing it says about kids: You can speak out, as long as it doesn't disrupt the work at hand.

Brett believes his shirt's message was not disruptive. By wearing it, Brett said he was not trying to say that the president is actually a terrorist, but that he is like one because of his policies. "I was attacking the policies," he said, "not the man."

"The dictionary defines a terrorist as someone who instills fear in others," Brett said. "Well, he's instilled fear in people my age who are afraid they could have to go fight in a war." Brett says the war threat also frightens the Iraqi people and others in the world who believe war will stir up more violence.

The Michigan ACLU is trying to persuade the school system to let Brett wear his shirt.

-- Fern Shen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bretton Barber got in big trouble at school for a shirt. It wasn't that the 16-year-old stole a shirt or ruined somebody's shirt in a food fight. It was the words printed on a shirt he wore. "International Terrorist," the shirt said, along with a picture of President George W.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Lost Winter: VICE Sports Climate Change Special

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas sues Biden administration over guidance saying transgender workers can use bathroom of their choice

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas sues Biden administration over guidance saying transgender workers can use bathroom of their choice

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/20/texas-lawsuit-lgbtq-workplace-bathroom/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the Biden administration over recent federal guidance issued to protect LGBTQ people in the workplace, including a directive that says employees should be allowed to use the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that correspond with their gender identity.

The guidance also clarifies that misuse of a person's preferred pronouns could be considered harassment in certain circumstances.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in the Northern District of Texas federal court, Paxton claims that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it issued a technical assistance document outlining the impact of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year. That ruling prohibited employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Title VII prohibitsdiscrimination against employees on the basis of sex.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the EEOC, commission Chair Charlotte A. Burrows and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The EEOC guidance, released June 15, specifies that employers must not prohibit transgender employees from dressing in correspondence with their gender identity or using bathrooms, locker rooms or showers that are consistent with their gender identity.

In a statement, Paxton called the guidance "illegal" and an "unacceptable" attempt "to force businesses, including the State of Texas, to align with their beliefs."

"If the Biden Administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change," Paxton said.

In the lawsuit, Paxton also argued that the EEOC violated the First and 11th Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies how government agencies issue regulations.

The EEOC said in an email Monday that it does not comment on pending litigation, but that it will be represented by the Department of Justice, which declined to comment Monday.

In a statement released in June, Burrows said newly released EEOC resources in the aftermath of Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County "will make it easier for people to understand their rights and responsibilities related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

"All people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, deserve an opportunity to work in an environment free from harassment or other discrimination," Burrows said. "The Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is a historic milestone that resulted from the struggle, sacrifice, and vision of many brave LGBTQ+ individuals and allies who had championed civil rights for the LGBTQ+ communities."

Transgender Texans have long been a target of Republican state officials. In 2017, the state Legislature attempted to pass Senate Bill 6, known as the " bathroom bill," that would have required transgender people to use bathrooms in public schools, government buildings and public universities based on their gender assigned at birth. However, the bill failed to pass even during a subsequent special session.

During this year's regular legislative session, lawmakers introduced numerous bills targeting transgender Texans, including legislation that would restrict transgender student athletes' participation in school sports and prohibit doctors from offering gender-affirming medical care. But neither of those measures made it to Gov. Greg Abbott 's desk.

In all three special sessions he's called since May, Abbott has made limiting transgender student athletes' sports participation a priority. No such measure passed during the first two special sessions. This year's third special session started Monday.
If you appreciate reporting like this, you need to be at the all-virtual 2021 Texas Tribune Festival happening now through Sept. 25. Join as big names from politics, public policy and the media share what's next for Texas and beyond. Explore live and on-demand programming, including dozens of free events, at tribfest.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas sues Biden administration over guidance saying transgender workers can use bathroom of their choice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the Biden administration over recent federal guidance issued to protect LGBTQ people in the workplace, including a directive that says employees should be allowed to use the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that correspond with their gender identity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Spectrum South - The Voice of the Queer South

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Upon first glance, these brands appear to be spearheading change by doing away with a binary system that is truly discriminatory towards gender-nonconforming people and , in turn, providing a safe and supportive space for trans and non-binary folks to shop. A deeper look, however, reveals that most of these brands are merely reinforcing gender norms.

full of baggy, boxy T-shirts, loose hoodies, and neutral-based color schemes. ASOS, a large fashion brand based in the UK, is one of the latest companies to release a gender - neutral clothing line. The collection is s styles similar to ASOS - baggy shirts and loose trousers. Beyond Zara, another large fashion retailer with stores around the world, simply added an "ungendered" section to their website. This section feature these two examples, many other retail ers promoting gender neutrality follow similar models.

A few companies stand out as glimmers of hope within the fashion industry. , announced that it was doing away with its "boy's" and "girl John Lewis, a large childrenswear retailer ' s" section s-that all of the brand's clothing could be worn by any child, regardless of gender. Even though John Lewis faced great backlash, the brand stood by its decision to create more choices and options for customers.

Fashion companies that are true leaders in the gender-neutral clothing movement are those owned and operated by and for trans, non-binary, and gender-nonconforming people. These brands, including companies like diversity within their The Phluid Project and Chromat, have aimed to celebrate and highlight all parts of gender neutrality and clothing lines.

While the fashion industry may be a long way from embracing true gender neutrality , we must remember that we have the freedom to choose any and all clothing that best represents our true selves. We deserve to wear what makes us feel most comfortable, in whatever form or fashion that may take.

Joelle Bayaa-Uzuri is the owner of Ten90Two, LLC Clothing, C.A.B. president for the Mahogany Project, Inc., and a freelance writer for TheQ26. She's also a social activist with a dirty mouth, an urban burlesque dancer, fashionista, artist, and unapologetic bad bitch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upon first glance, these brands appear to be spearheading change by doing away with a binary system that is truly discriminatory towards gender-nonconforming people and , in turn, providing a safe and supportive space for trans and non-binary folks to shop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | All clothing should be considered gender neutral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever put on a piece of clothing and been told that it looks too feminine or masculine? Unfortunately, you wouldn’t be the only one; this happens regularly to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Historically, babies and kids were actually dressed in unisex clothing for decades. It's only been since the 1980's that the divide started, because then became possible to find out a child's gender before birth. Nowadays, we are slowly changing our vision again of what is 'for boys' and 'for girls'. When it comes to gender, we are in the midst of a big cultural shift - and it's driven by millennials. Fifty percent of millennials believe that gender is a spectrum, showing that younger generations have a less rigid view of gender roles.

Boys, girls, unisex

© Orbasics

What does gender-neutral mean? And is gender-neutral the same as unisex?

Defining gender-neutral kidswear is actually pretty straightforward. It simply means that a piece of clothing is made and worn without a particular gender in mind. A gender-neutral brand does not have a girls or boys section, but creates timeless outfits that look fantastic on any child. Some parents might worry that gender-neutral kids clothes will only come in grey or beige shades without real colours and seem somewhat dull. The opposite is true! The very idea of gender-neutral clothing is to embrace the whole spectrum of colours, styles and tones.

Gender-neutral, unisex, non-binary. It's easy getting a bit lost in these different terms. Thankfully when it comes to kids clothes, the answer is simple. We can use the terms "gender-neutral" and "unisex" interchangeably, as they simply mean "for all". Both help spread the message that outfit does not conform to any gender stereotype, that's it!

Why gender-neutral kids clothes matter
Gender is a fairly restrictive concept. When gender stereotypes are reinforced through kids clothing, it can send a limiting message to your little ones. Gender-neutral kidswear allows kids to express themselves exactly how they choose to. It allows them to select a range of clothing which let's them be themselves and to develop into the unique personalities they are. By eliminating stereotypes as a parent, you create a path to freedom of thought and expression.

It is all about the motto: If you like it, wear it.

Next to this, unisex childrens clothes also have economic and sustainable benefits. Gender-neutral shapes and colors make it way more easy to share clothes. We are always surprised how quick our kids grow-up. Unisex kids clothes are shared with siblings and friends, no matter if it is a boy or girl.

© Orbasics
How do you involve your kids?
If you are aiming to raise your children in an environment that is free of gender stereotypes, here are a few - science based - suggestions. The subject might seem 'heavy' to share with them, but it can be as simple as giving your kids different toys to play with. Toys are vital for their development and when we stereotype a toy 'for boys' or 'for girls', we limit the skills they develop. So load-up the trucks, barbies and blocks.

Another suggestion is to let your kids play in mixed-gender groups to let them interact. Think of sports, birthday parties and playdates. The same with exposing children to a wide variety of grown-up role models. Introduce them to your male hairdresser or simply point out the female pilot walking by on the airport. The most important thing is to create a safe environment to explore and to focus on the positive side. It is ok to be different.

Where can I buy unisex clothing?

Unfortunately, the large fashion brands have been slow to embrace the shift to more gender-fluid clothing. If we walk through the isles of big fashion houses, we still see outfits clearly intended for one gender or the other. Not to speak of the fact that these brands usually offer non-organic clothing that lack proper quality. Instead, small and independent fashion labels are driving the shift towards gender-neutral clothes, breaking with gender stereotypes and the throw-away culture of the fast fashion industry.

This is where our small label Orbasics enters the stage. From the day we started our label, we wanted to make it easy for parents to find organic, ethical and unisex childrens clothes for their little ones. We never understood why girls should wear pink, while boys were stuck with blue. Instead, we love to create comfy wardrobe classics in timeless unisex designs that go with any outfit. Girls look just as great in our Pigeon Blue as boys do in our Dusty Pink and everybody feels equally great in our Mighty Longsleeve or Play-all-Day Leggings :)

In the end, what really counts is giving our kids the room to express and find themselves, without an idea of what's wrong or right. From a very young age, children are smart enough to know which hobbies, toys and clothes they want to experiment with. Offering our little ones a wardrobe full of gender-neutral kids clothes gives them the space to grow and explore their own preferences while being free of any stereotypes. As the American anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "children should be taught to think, not to think."

© Orbasics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Orbasics - Why gender neutral kids clothes matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historically, babies and kids were actually dressed in unisex clothing for decades. It's only been since the 1980's that the divide started, because then became possible to find out a child's gender before birth. Nowadays, we are slowly changing our vision again of what is 'for boys' and 'for girls'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Against Gender-Neutral Bathrooms | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colleges and businesses are spending millions of dollars in accommodating the demands of activists at the expense of the privacy, hygiene, and camaraderie of an established and objective majority - females.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender-neutral restrooms are becoming more commonplace, as they should. It is an important step to be inclusive of people who are transgender and non-binary people. In most places, separate restrooms for men and women are the norm, with people choosing which one to use based on their gender identity…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
We need more gender-neutral restrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Shake Shack to the Sawyer building on our very own campus, gender-neutral bathrooms are being installed around the country. Proponents of the radical shakeup to the way we "do our business" make a pretty appealing and straightforward case: A person who identifies as gender-neutral or transgender that feels uncomfortable entering either the male or female bathroom has a right to their own bathroom where they do feel comfortable.

Although it seems appealing to air on the side of "rights" and "comfort" in this debate, you should say no to gender-neutral bathrooms as they distort scientific reality in order to perpetuate the myth that biologicalsex is amere "social construct." Not only do they distort science to fit an a-scientific narrative, they create more discomfort than they alleviate, open up avenues for sexual abuse that were previously non-existent, and push the dangerous myth that commodities and services of any kind are fundamental human rights.

First, the idea that a subjective feeling of discomfort for one individual necessitates a complete change of cultural norms for everyone in the bathroom is quite a stretch of logic. Bathrooms are not separated by gender as the transgender rights activists would have you believe. Instead, bathrooms are separated based on biological sex. Men go to the bathroom with other men, women go to the bathroom with other women - and for good reason. As much as the transgender activists advocate for the notion that there are no inherent differences between the sexes, anatomy says otherwise.

Activists may respond that there is no need for the separation between the sexes, but this flies in the face of common sense. Would any woman prefer to be in the same bathroom alone with a group of inebriated men at a bar late at night? The sexes are separated because they are biologically, socially and behaviorally different.

The number of both men and women that will feel uncomfortable in a gender-neutral bathroom far exceeds the number of non-binary people that will feel uncomfortable in a normal bathroom. The number of people that could potentially be victimized in a gender-neutral bathroom far exceeds the number of people that could be victimized in a single-sex bathroom.

No, this doesn't mean that transgender or non-binary individuals are predators stalking the bathrooms looking for victims to prey upon, but gender-neutral bathrooms do open up opportunities for would-be pedophiles and sexual abusers that otherwise would not have been there. As reported by the Economist, "In 2012 Christopher Hambrook assaulted women in two homeless shelters in Toronto, gaining access by falsely claiming he was a trans woman. State law had changed earlier that year to recognise self-declared gender identity. In 2014 he was found guilty of sexual assault and criminal harassment." The pernicious act of falsely identifying as transgender or non-binary in order to commit crimes is a real threat, and the previous example is only one of the many avenues of abuse the tearing down of sex-separated bathrooms creates.

If the main motivation behind creating gender-neutral bathrooms is the elimination of discomfort for those that identify as non-binary, why does the potential discomfort of the transgender community, constituting roughly 0.6% of the world's population according to the Williams Institute, outweigh the potential discomfort of 99.4% of the world's population? It shouldn't.

Let's also dispel with the notion that anyone has a "right" to a bathroom. Bathrooms, just as housing, water, food and healthcare, are commodities or services depending on your definition. They certainly aren't things that are we "endowed by our creator" with a right to.

Declaring a commodity a right is as foreign to the Western notion of inalienable rights as a Polar Bear is to the Amazon Rainforest. The Bill of Rights guarantees rights that are immune to any interference from government, these rights are otherwise known as "negative rights."

For instance, the government can never infringe on your right to free speech, imprison you without due process nor strip you of your right to bear arms. However, guaranteeing commodities as rights require something from government, which in this country is the people of the United States. These rights presume that by a person's very existence, they are entitled to goods and services that someone else must provide. Although it may sound compassionate and progressive to say that things like healthcare, food and water are "human rights," codifying commodities as rights actually leads to a violation of human rights.

To illustrate the danger of these "positive rights," consider the following situation. A hungry man walks into a 7-11, takes a Milky Way and a bottle of water, scoffs them down, and then leaves the store without paying for neither the food nor water. The clerk immediately calls the police, the man is arrested and charged with petty theft and a trail ensues. The defense of the sweet-toothed bandit is not that he made a mistake in stealing the candy bar, but instead his defense is that he, having a right to food and water, should not be imprisoned for simply exercising his rights.

The onus is on those that argue for commodities as rights to explain either why he should be imprisoned if he has a right to food and water or why his stealing is justified. Furthermore, if we treat commodities as human rights, why couldn't the man force by government action the store clerk to provide him with the food or water? If the clerk didn't provide the man with the food and water willingly, surely it would be a legitimate role of government to guarantee the rights of the man in this situation as well. The road to hell is most certainly paved with good intentions.

Lastly, we arrive at the crux of the issue. As established in this article earlier, no reasonable person would come to the conclusion that access to a private or public bathroom is a fundamental human right, nor would they conclude that on aggregate less discomfort is caused with gender-neutral bathrooms than with sex-separated bathrooms. So why is there still an insistence on this terrible idea? The true reason why we are even considering the radical transformation of bathrooms across the world is that there has been a recent push among the transgender rights activist community to get rid of biological sex, claiming that biological sex is simply something that we are "assigned" with at birth, not something that is immutable and inherent in human beings.

Take it from Planned Parenthood, which says "Biological or assigned sex does not always tell the complete story." Of course biological sex tells the whole story when it comes to whether someone is a male or female! Regardless of your views on the validity of gender identity and its mutability, biological sex is an undeniable reality. Sex, as defined by the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), as the "biological characteristics that define humans as male or female." A male is of the male sex because he is born with XY chromosomes, a female is a female because she was born with XX chromosomes. One cannot change their chromosomes or their sex because they are immutable factors in a human's DNA.

The transgender lobby argues that the binary of sex is debunked by the existence of intersex people - people that are born with the opposite DNA that they have the physical characteristics of. Again, this is taking genetic outliers, which WHO deems "outside of the typical definition for male or female bodies" and attempting to apply their case to the larger issue at hand. For example, arguing that humans are designed to be born with 11 toes per foot is not true, simply because one person has 11, and not the standard 10.

Say no to gender neutral bathrooms. They not only perpetuate the a-scientific theory that biological sex is a mere social construct, they also cause more discomfort than they alleviate, and push the dangerous notion of positive rights.
Connect with Nick on Twitter @nsamm41.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Shake Shack to the Sawyer building on our very own campus, gender-neutral bathrooms are being installed around the country. Proponents of the radical shakeup to the way we "do our business" make a pretty appealing and straightforward case: A person who identifies as gender-neutral or transgender that feels uncomfortable entering either the male or...

# data[].attributes.headline
Kai Shappley: A Trans Girl Growing Up In Texas | Emmy-Winning Documentary | them.

# data[].attributes.subject
Kai Shappley: A Trans Girl Growing Up In Texas | Emmy-Winning Documentary | them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kai Shappley: A Trans Girl Growing Up In Texas | Emmy-Winning Documentary | them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/guns-are-rarely-used-in-s_b_9774008

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"If you are fearful, arm yourself."

That was Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader's advice to Ohio residents in the wake of a series of "execution"-style killings that left eight members of a family dead at four different homes in Southern Ohio last week. Attorney General Mike DeWine described the shootings as "a sophisticated operation" amidst news reports that marijuana "grow operations" were found at three of the four homes, although it's not known whether the murders were linked to the drug activities. The shooting was the 23rd mass shooting (three victims or more as defined by federal law) so far this year.

Sheriff Reader's advice may warm the cold heart of the National Rifle Association and its financial partners in the gun industry which claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Yet the truth is that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals.

According to the latest federal data available, as detailed in Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, a report issued last week by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, private citizens use guns to harm themselves or others far more often than to kill in self-defense.

The study analyzes data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and cites survey data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

The study finds that in 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, there were only 211 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the SHR. That year, there were 7,838 reported criminal firearm homicides. Using these numbers, in 2013, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 37 criminal homicides. This ratio does not even take into account the tens of thousands of lives needlessly lost in gun suicides and unintentional shootings that year.

The study also finds only a tiny fraction of the intended victims of violent crime or property crime employ guns for self-defense. According to the federal government's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), over the three-year period from 2012 to 2014, less than one percent of victims of attempted or completed violent crimes used a firearm, and only 0.2 percent of victims of attempted or completed property crimes used a firearm:

For violent crime, the NCVS estimates that there were 18,328,600 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same three-year period, only 163,600 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm -- or 0.9 percent.

For property crime, the NCVS estimates that there were 51,685,500 victims of attempted or completed property crime. During this same three-year period, only 99,900 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm -- or 0.2 percent.

For each of these categories, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response. In addition, the numbers may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households.

The fact is that the use of guns in self-defense in America bears little resemblance to the false claims made by the NRA and its gun industry partners. Perhaps most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

Executive Director, Violence Policy Center

self-defense NRA national rifle association Politics Piketon, Ohio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fact is that the use of guns in self-defense in America bears little resemblance to the false claims made by the NRA and its gun industry partners. Perhaps most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender bias online is as harmful as ever. Here are a few ways to fight back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“The gender bias that we see online is a reflection of the gender bias in the society more broadly that materially privileges men and harms women.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beef is raised in many of the most sensitive and important ecosystems around the world, including the North America's great plains, the Brazilian Amazon, the savannahs of Southern Africa and the Great Barrier Reef watershed of Australia.

With the global population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050 and income levels rising, demand for beef is increasing and will only grow. Yet beef production requires a lot of land, water and energy, and generates considerable waste. It is thus essential to improve its sustainability globally.

There are many ways beef production-when sustainably managed-can achieve conservation benefits. Grazing maintains the health of grasslands, improves soil quality with manure, and preserves open space and wildlife habitat. Additionally, carbon is sequestered in the grasses and soils of grazing lands. Beef production also provides social benefits by sustaining livelihoods and community vibrancy in rural areas where grasslands dominate. In the Northern Great Plains, for example, WWF is partnering with ranchers, recognizing that their viability is key to keeping grasslands intact. When ranchers manage land for long-term health, wildlife and people, everyone wins.

WWF envisions a global marketplace in which all beef is sustainable. By working with producers as well as companies and their supply chains to improve the sustainability of beef production, WWF is helping ensure that consumers have choices for a safe, affordable and sustainable diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beef is raised in many of the most sensitive and important ecosystems around the world, including the North America's great plains, the Brazilian Amazon, the savannahs of Southern Africa and the Great Barrier Reef watershed of Australia. With the global population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050 and income levels rising, demand for beef is increasing and will only grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican voters in the United States are increasingly hostile toward illegal immigrants, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows, an unease that the Republican Party is moving to capitalize on in its bid to retake Congress.

The poll findings, based on surveys conducted before and after Donald Trump's presidency, show that Republicans are becoming more unified around the former president's hardline views on immigration, even as the rest of the country has become more welcoming.

Seventy-seven percent of Republicans said in a Feb. 18-24 poll that they want more fencing along the southern border with Mexico, up six points from 2015. And 56% do not want illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship, which is up 18 percentage points from a 2018 survey.

Republicans are increasingly expressing deep concerns about immigration as waves of unaccompanied children and families continue to show up at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Twenty-two percent of Republicans said in a March 10-11 poll they consider immigration to be the nation's most important problem, up from 7% who said so in early February.

Republicans are trying to reinvigorate supporters after losing both the White House and the Senate in last November's election. They, however, are fractured between Trump loyalists and those who want to move on and make the party more electable.

Sticking to a tough line on immigration carries risks for the party as U.S. demographics change and minorities gain political influence.

The importance of the border issue for Republicans was on display this week in El Paso, Texas, where visiting House of Representatives Republican leader Kevin McCarthy blamed President Joe Biden for a rise in border arrivals.

"The security of our nation and our border is first and foremost the responsibility of our president," McCarthy said, describing the current migrant influx as "a Biden border crisis."

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Monday said the Biden administration was trying to work through a "dismantled and unprepared system" left behind by Trump. "It's going to take some time, but we are very clear-eyed about what the problems are and very focused on putting forward solutions," she said.

On Tuesday, she told reporters the White House welcomed input from McCarthy or others who had "solutions and wants to be a part of working to address what we all know is a challenging situation at the border."

In its efforts to pursue what it says is a more humane system, the Biden administration has relaxed certain policies - moves that have been accompanied by a growing number of illegal border crossers.

U.S. officials have been scrambling to find additional shelters to house unaccompanied children and speed up their releases to family members or other sponsors already in the United States.

Republican leaders have signaled that they intend to use immigration in congressional districts, especially along the border, to help turn out the votes of party loyalists and conservative independents in congressional elections next year.

Party officials hope the border issue will also counter Biden's promotion of the new COVID-19 relief bill and call into question his commitment to national security, and law and order.

"His failure to secure the border and take responsibility is harming the security of the American people. With Biden, it's open borders but closed schools - clearly a mismanagement of priorities." Republican National Committee Press Secretary Mandi Merritt said in a statement to Reuters.

A Republican strategist familiar with the leadership's thinking told Reuters the party will focus its resources on a handful of House districts along the Mexican border that are currently occupied by Democrats. These include seats held by Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Filemon Vela in Texas, and Tom O'Halleran and Ann Kirkpatrick, who is retiring, in Arizona.

Biden appears to be on shakier ground with his approach to immigration among independents, a crucial voting group, than he has been with his handling of the coronavirus and the economy, according to the poll.

The February survey found 50% of independents opposed allowing more asylum seekers into the country, while 34% supported doing so.

Similarly, 50% of all Americans said they did not want to increase the number of refugees allowed in the country, while only 39% supported doing so.

A DOUBLE-EDGED STRATEGY

The Reuters/Ipsos polling showed that Republicans, who are calling for a return to Trump's hardline policies, will need to tread carefully in deciding how hard to push an anti-immigration message in the next elections.

While Republicans have become more opposed to programs that would benefit immigrants who entered the country illegally, polling shows the rest of the country appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

For example, 61% of American adults support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in a Reuters/Ipsos February survey, which is up from 43% in a 2015 survey.

The number of Americans who do not want more fencing along the Mexican border has more than doubled over the past six years, and surveys conducted during Trump's tenure in office shows a steady increase in support for policies that would ease restrictions on children who were brought over the border illegally.

An October 2020 poll showed that 63% now approve of policies to help so-called "Dreamers" remain in the country and obtain work permits, up from 46% in 2014.

"Certainly, there seems to be a good deal of evidence that an anti-immigration mindset turns off college-educated women in the suburbs and younger voters," said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant and pollster. "So there is a cost to demonizing a segment of the population."

The strategy also has not always worked.

In the lead-up to 2018's midterm elections, Trump warned the about a caravan of Central American migrants who were headed north to escape violence and poverty in their countries. Vilifying the migrants as criminals and potential terrorists, Trump said his party was the only one that would defend the nation.

His warnings did not sway the elections, handing the Democrats control of the House for the first time in nearly a decade in what was seen as a repudiation of Trump.

Still, some Democrats do not appear interested in waiting to see if they can again survive being painted as a party that wants to open the border.

Texas Congressman Gonzalez, a Democrat who is being targeted by Republicans, has been advocating for remedies that Republican have supported, like giving migrants incentives to seek asylum in other countries

"What we need is a plan in place that doesn't incentivize people to make this very dangerous trek," Gonzalez told CNN on Sunday.

(This story refiles to add apostrophe in headline)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Republicans' hostility grows toward illegal immigrants as party attacks Biden on border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican voters in the United States are increasingly hostile toward illegal immigrants, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows, an unease that the Republican Party is moving to capitalize on in its bid to retake Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Timeline: Definition & Reform - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A timeline of U.S. immigration shows how, from the 1600s to today, the United States became a nation of people from hundreds of cultures, languages and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Police spend only about 4% of their time responding to violent crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The comprehensive platform of research-based policy solutions to end police brutality in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Texas has introduced the most bills targeting transgender youth in the country, triple the number of any other state. Though none of Texas' over 40 proposed anti-trans bills have been passed, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has made restricting trans youth's sports participation a priority for the state's third special legislative session.

Local and national LGBTQ+ advocates worry that regardless of whether the bills pass, the language in and around them that characterizes trans girls as boys will spur violent, potentially deadly attacks and worsen mental health among an already vulnerable population.

"We just have a fraction of the data and can see that we're in crisis," said Victoria Kirby York, deputy executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition. "It's past epidemic, and these state legislatures are making things worse."

Across the United States, 35 trans people have been killed so far in 2021, per the Human Rights Campaign. At least four of those deaths took place in Texas, which has one of the highest known populations of trans people in the country and has reported the most trans killings of any state. This year is expected to be the deadliest on record for trans Americans amid overall rising homicides that coincided with the coronavirus pandemic.

"The longer we have conversations that dehumanize and rob the dignity of trans Texans, these numbers will continue to rise," Emmett Schelling, executive director for the Transgender Education Network of Texas, said at a protest late last month.

As greater numbers of anti-trans bills have been introduced across more states within the last two years, more trans homicides have taken place in those states. Last year, 56 percent of trans homicides took place in states that attempted to pass anti-trans legislation, per a review of ACLU and Human Rights Campaign data by The 19th. Still, research proving any direct link between the deaths and the legislation is lacking.

Christina DeJong, an associate professor at Michigan State University who studies violence against trans people, said that advocates worried about rising trans homicides due to anti-trans bills have valid concerns, but "we just don't have enough data to know for sure."

What does worry her about bills brought in Texas and other states is that they create "a culture that's anti-trans, that can be used to validate violent attacks against trans people." The "othering" of trans people encouraged by anti-trans legislation can lead to violence and further victimization, DeJong said, since "it's easier to cause harm to someone who's an 'other' than someone who's in your group."

Eric Stanley, an associate professor in gender and women's studies at the University of California, Berkeley who researches anti-trans and queer violence, echoed that idea. They wrote over email that "anti-trans legislation helps generalize anti-trans violence as not only permissible, but supported by the state."

"In other words, those that enact anti-trans violence on the individual level are acting under the authority of a murderous settler state. The two are entwined in a deadly knot," they said.

In 2017 there was a spike in bathroom bills across state legislatures, and that year there were more trans homicides in states pushing anti-trans legislation. GLAAD found in 2017 that 58 percent of trans homicides took place in states that had attempted or successfully passed anti-trans legislation. And 29 percent of trans homicides in 2019 happened in states where similar bills were attempted.

But there are complications to these trends: In 2018, there was only one recorded killing in a state that had brought any anti-trans bills. And at this point in 2021, only 12 states' legislators have not introduced anti-trans legislation, per Freedom for All Americans - so in almost any state where a trans homicide occurs, there is likely to be some sort of anti-trans bill in the legislature.

But while there are lingering questions of causality related to homicides, experts agree that anti-trans legislation can worsen mental health among a population that already struggles with greater risks of suicide and is more likely to struggle with anxiety or depression.

In May, crisis hotline Trans Lifeline saw a 72 percent increase in calls from Texas area codes compared to the previous year, while anti-trans bills similar to those proposed in the state's special session were being considered, Yana Calou, public relations director of Trans Lifeline, said over email.

The Trevor Project found in its latest annual report that LGBTQ+ youth who didn't feel their gender or sexual orientation were affirmed in school or at home attempted suicide more than those who were affirmed. Anti-trans legislation could heighten that risk, spokesperson Rob Todaro said, citing a 2020 study led by one of the organization's senior researchers.

Many of the bills going through Texas aimed to classify gender-affirming treatments like hormones and surgeries as child abuse and ban puberty blockers provided by a physician. Others legislate the sports teams that trans girls can and cannot play on. At least 29 of the bills introduced in Texas are currently active - significantly more than any other state.

Kirby York said that proposed legislation to restrict gender-affirming care - which has so far only passed in Arkansas and was blocked in federal court - is most feared for causing self-harm among trans kids, since over half of trans and nonbinary youth surveyed by the Trevor Project considered suicide in the past year. Trans adults who can't access hormones and other transition care also report higher rates of suicide attempts and ideation, per a 2019 Williams Institute study.

And Texas is not likely to be the last news-making state in terms of restrictions against trans people. Beyond this legislative session, advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign are preparing for anti-trans bills to keep piling on for the rest of the year.

Schelling warned on a Human Rights Campaign call last month: "There's just no plausible deniability at this point that our state leadership does not know the harm that it's causing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas is pushing the most anti-trans bills in the country. Advocates fear deadly consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas has introduced the most bills targeting transgender youth in the country, triple the number of any other state. Though none of Texas' over 40 proposed anti-trans bills have been passed, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has made restricting trans youth's sports participation a priority for the state's third special legislative session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation - a coordinated push led by national anti-LGBTQ groups, not local lawmakers - is part of a broader strategy to score political points with the conservative base by curtailing the rights of LGBTQ people and specifically trans youth - under the guise of responding to nonexistent and baseless threats. These bills represent a cruel effort to further stigmatize and discriminate against LGBTQ people across the country, specifically trans youth who simply want to live as their true selves and grow into who they are.
Breakdown of Anti-LGBTQ Legislation Sweeping State Legislatures in 2021
So far in 2021, seventeen anti-LGBTQ bills have been enacted into law surpassing 2015 as the worst year for anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history (when 15 anti-LGBTQ bills were enacted into law), including:

7 anti-trans sports bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Montana, and West Virginia

4 religious refusal bills, including in Arkansas, Montana, and South Dakota

2 anti-LGBTQ education bills in Tennessee and Montana

1 anti-trans medical care ban bill in Arkansas

1 sham "hate crimes" bill in Arkansas

1 anti-all comers bill in North Dakota

1 anti-trans birth certificate bill in Montana

With seventeen bills now signed into law, states have enacted more anti-LGBTQ laws this year than in the last three years combined (anti-LGBTQ bills enacted in previous years include 2 bills in 2018, 7 bills in 2019, and 4 bills in 2020).

More than 250 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in 2021, including:

At least 35 bills that would prohibit transgender youth from being able to access best-practice, age-appropriate, gender-affirming medical care

At least 69 bills that would prohibit transgender youth (and in some cases college students) from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity

At least 43 bills that would allow people to assert a religious belief as justification for failing to abide by the law or provide services to people of whom they disapprove

At least 15 bills that would prohibit transgender people from having access to restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity
Wide range of business and advocacy groups, athletes oppose anti-trans legislation

More than 90 major U.S. corporations have stood up and spoke out to oppose anti-transgender legislation being proposed in states across the country. New companies like Facebook, Pfizer, Altria, Peloton, and Dell join companies like Amazon, American Airlines, Apple, AT&T, AirBnB, Google, Hilton, IBM, IKEA, Microsoft, Nike, Paypal, Uber, and Verizon in objecting to these bills. Four of the largest U.S. food companies also condemned "dangerous, discriminatory legislation that serves as an attack on LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender and nonbinary people," and the Walton Family Foundation issued a statement expressing "alarm" at the trend of anti-transgender legislation that has recently become law in Arkansas.

The nation's leading child health and welfare groups representing more than 7 million youth-serving professionals and more than 1000 child welfare organizations released an open letter calling for lawmakers in states across the country to oppose dozens of bills that target LGBTQ people, and transgender children in particular.
A fight driven by national anti-LGBTQ groups, not local legislators or public concern

These bills come from the same forces that drove previous anti-equality fights by pushing copycat bills across state houses - dangerous, anti-LGBTQ organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (designated by Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group), and Eagle Forum among others. For example, Montana's HB 112, the first anti-transgender sports bill to be passed in 2021 through a legislative chamber in any state, was worked on by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Trans equality is popular: Anti-transgender legislation is a low priority, even among Trump voters

A new PBS/NPR/Marist poll states that 67% of Americans, including 66% of Republicans, oppose the anti-transgender sports ban legislation proliferating across 30 states.

At least 60% of Trump voters across each of the 10 swing states say transgender people should be able to live freely and openly.

At least 87% of respondents across each of the 10 swing states say transgender people should have equal access to medical care, with many states breaking 90% support.

When respondents were asked about how they prioritized the importance of banning transgender people from participating in sports as compared to other policy issues, the issue came in dead last, with between 1% and 3% prioritizing the issue.

Another more recent poll conducted by the Human Rights Campaign & Hart Research Group revealed that, with respect to transgender youth participation in sports, the public's strong inclination is on the side of fairness and equality for transgender student athletes. 73% of voters agree that "sports are important in young people's lives. Young transgender people should be allowed opportunities to participate in a way that is safe and comfortable for them."
States that pass anti-transgender legislation suffer economic, legal, reputational harm

Analyses conducted in the aftermath of previous divisive anti-transgender bills across the country, like the bathroom bills introduced in Texas and North Carolina and an anti-transgender sports ban in Idaho, show that there would be or has been devastating fallout.

The Idaho anti-transgender sports bill that passedwas swiftly suspended by a federal district court. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) came out against the Idaho bill and others like it and subsequently moved planned tournament games out of Idaho.

During a fight over an anti-transgender bathroom bill in 2017, theTexas Association of Business estimated $8.5 billion in economic losses, risking 185,000 jobs in the process due to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and professional sporting event cancellations, a ban on taxpayer funded travel to those states, cancellation of movie productions, and businesses moving projects out of state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2021 Officially Becomes Worst Year in Recent History for LGBTQ State Legislative Attacks as Unprecedented Number of States Enact Record-Shattering Number of Anti-LGBTQ Measures Into Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation - a coordinated push led by national anti-LGBTQ groups, not local lawmakers - is part of a broader strategy to score political points with the conservative base by curtailing the rights of LGBTQ people and specifically trans youth - under the guise of responding to nonexistent and baseless threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic straws are everywhere we look. We use them to drink beverages at home and we get them at almost every restaurant. Recently, however, plastic straws have been the subject of many plastic bans in an attempt to help the environment.

But should plastic straws really be banned? And will a plastic straw ban actually be effective when it comes to saving our oceans and environment?

In this article, I'll go over both the pros and cons of a plastic straw ban. I'll also go over whether or not plastic straw bans will actually help the environment, and explain everything else you'll need to know.

Let's get started:

Why Should Plastic Straws Be Banned? (Pros of the Ban)

The single biggest reason why people want to ban plastic straws is because of their negative effects on the environment.

Plastic, in general, is one of the biggest pollutants in the world. Most of it is either dumped in landfills or ends up in the ocean. Once in the ocean, plastic pollution is extremely dangerous to marine life, and plastic straws are no exception.

Plastic straws (like most plastic) are non-biodegradable, meaning that it can't be naturally broken down by decomposers. They also aren't accepted by recycling facilities because they can jam recycling machinery (due to their small size). Thus, plastic straws can't be recycled.

To make matters worse, if plastic straws get into the ocean, they can be mistaken for food by marine animals. When animals ingest plastic, it clogs up their digestive systems, which can easily choke or kill animals like birds or sea turtles.

In fact, the global backlash against plastic straws likely started after researchers off the coast of Costa Rica shared a viral video of a sea turtle with a plastic straw stuck up its nose.

According to the researchers, the turtle likely mistook the straw for food and swallowed it. Then, the straw got stuck in the turtle's nose after she/he tried to cough the straw back out.

You probably already saw the video, but if you didn't, you can watch it below (WARNING: Graphic Content):

Supporters of plastic straw bans claim that the ban will help reduce our use of single-use plastics. As a result, the ban will reduce the number of plastic straws polluting the ocean.

According to market research firms, Americans use about 350 million plastic straws every single day. Plastic straws are also the 6th most common trash item found during ocean cleanups. A plastic straw ban would serve to reduce the number of plastic straws entering the ocean.

Overall, the main reason for a plastic straw ban is to help the environment by preventing plastic straws pollution.

If you'd like to learn more about how plastic straws negatively impact the environment, you can check out this article I wrote about the environmental impact of plastic straws.

Now, let's get into the negatives of a plastic straw ban:

Why Plastic Straws Shouldn't be Banned (Cons of the Ban):

While banning plastic straws might help the environment in some aspects (we'll talk about this later), there are also many reasons against (or cons) of a plastic straw ban.

Here are 3 reasons why plastic straws should not be banned, explained in a simple and easy-to-understand manner:

1. Some Disabled People Require Plastic Straws to Drink

For some people with disabilities, straws are the only way they can drink. An outright ban on plastic straws would create an accessibility problem for disabled people while dining in public.

For example, some disabled people may not be able to properly hold or pick up a cup, so they need to use straws to drink properly.

Alternatives to plastic straws, such as paper, may not always be effective for disabled people: paper can be bitten through or broken easily. As for reusable straws, they aren't flexible as plastic ones and can be easily forgotten at home. This leaves few other alternatives other than plastic straws.

For many in the disabled community, the availability of plastic straws is essential for their well-being and survival. A complete ban on plastic straws would harm disabled people, which definitely isn't the goal of such a ban.

So, what could be a better solution?

Well, a possible alternative solution could be to encourage businesses to only give out plastic straws on request. This way, disabled people can continue to be served, while also reducing the number of plastic straws that we use.

2. A Ban Could Harm Local Businesses

If plastic straws are completely banned, local small businesses like boba tea shops will have to look for pricier alternatives. This could negatively reflect on their income.

Paper straws cost on average around 2.5 cents ($0.025), whereas plastic straws cost only half a cent ($0.005). While an extra two cents may not seem like a lot, it could make a difference for some businesses that depend on plastic straws.

3. A Plastic Straw Ban Might Not Really Help the Environment

Some opposers of the plastic straw ban say that a ban is unlikely to actually help the environment, as plastic straws do not make up a large percentage of plastic in the ocean.

In fact, plastic straws only make up around 0.03 percent of total plastic waste by mass. By comparison, an estimated 46 percent of all pollution in the ocean is made up of lost or abandoned fishing gear ( Vox).

Therefore, a plastic straw ban by itself is unlikely to be very effective in actually helping the environment, although it could act as a gateway into the reduction of other single-use plastics. I'll talk about this more in the next section:

Will a Plastic Straw Ban Actually Help the Environment?

By itself, a plastic straw ban is unlikely to have a large impact on the environment. Without proper education, few people would know the purpose of the ban, and they would continue using other single-use plastics which could be even worse for the environment.

However, if a plastic straw ban is properly implemented with education about single-use plastics, then the ban could encourage the public to reduce their usage of other single-use plastics as well.

Increased awareness about the negative effects of single-use plastics would help the environment a lot more than just a simple plastic straw ban.

Additionally, a plastic straw ban could also act as a gateway into other single-use plastic bans for items like plastic bottles and plastic bags, which are worse for the environment than plastic straws.

Overall, the goal of a plastic straw ban should be to increase public awareness for single-use plastics and their nasty effects on the environment. Only then would a plastic straw ban be able to actually help preserve the environment.

Conclusion: Should Plastic Straws Be Banned?

There are definitely differing opinions on whether or not plastic straws should be banned. In fact, I just listed many reasons and points in this article that support both sides of the argument.

You are free to have your own personal opinion on whether or not we should ban plastic straws. However, as an environmental enthusiast, here's what I think about this ban.

In my opinion, plastic straws should not be banned outright, because many disabled people require plastic straws to drink. We shouldn't ban plastic straws if it creates an accessibility issue.

However, I do believe that we should limit our use of plastic straws by asking businesses to only give out straws on request. We should also try to give up plastic straws if we are capable of doing so.

It's also important to look at the bigger picture regarding plastic bans.
Getting rid of a single plastic straw may not have a very large effect on the environment. But, getting rid of all single-use plastics definitely will.

The bottom line of any plastic ban is that we must use less single-use plastics overall. A plastic straw ban could be a good step in the right direction, but we must use less single-use products overall to actually help the environment.

Please share this message with your friends so that together, we can tackle our global plastic problem. You can share this article on social media by using the share buttons below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Plastic Straws Be Banned? [Pros & Cons of a Straw Ban in 2019]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic straws are everywhere we look. We use them to drink beverages at home and we get them at almost every restaurant. Recently, however, plastic straws have been the subject of many plastic bans in an attempt to help the environment. But should plastic straws really be banned?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control laws don’t work and they’re flawed concepts. The Right to Bear Arms protects law-abiding citizens from violent crime and saves lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his book "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom," apostate co-founder of Green Peace, Roger Moore, writes:

"Awhile back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists - all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject - to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that 'CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency'."

Once upon a time everybody knew the Earth was flat and, years later everybody knew tulips were a great investment. These days everybody knows that "climate change" is real. Not the natural kind of climate change that's as old as Earth, but the human-made "climate emergency" kind - Miss Nancy's "Mother Earth is angry" kind and Sainted Greta's "HOW DARE YOU!" kind, that threatens us daily with End of the World scenarios if we don't act now or - optionally - send them money.

The agenda-driven environmental zealots claim that climate science is "settled" and only "deniers" question it. But as Mark Twain observed: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Supposedly, the origin of this alleged CO2-driven climate change was the Industrial Revolution in 1750. What goes unmentioned by the Net-zero Zealots is that human welfare has improved dramatically since 1750.

These Net-zero Zealots also scream that burning fossil fuels is a horrible thing. Really?

The burning of fossil fuels has radically improved everything on this planet. It has given us safe and inexpensive lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, electricity generation, construction and food abundance. And just about everything else we depend on for our standard of living. Even if burning fossil fuels has also caused some warming of the atmosphere with CO2 - it's NOT a net loss. There is simply no question fossil fuels have dramatically benefited humanity.

These true-believing environmentalists claim surveys of climate scientists show there is a climate crisis, but no such surveys exist.

The surveys that do exist indicate that scientists agree that greenhouse gases have a warming influence and may create some problems in the future. Still, they don't agree it's a crisis. The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report concluded: "For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change."

The real crisis is that we are being fed so much misinformation on the issue.

There has been little climate change in the last 100 years, and there is almost no correlation between Earth's temperature and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas essential for life, not the evil, hated pollutant the Net-zero Zealots claim it is.

When there was an explosion of life during the Cambrian era - 7 million years ago - atmospheric CO2 was 7,000 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 today is a mere 400 ppm; we are in a CO2 drought and will benefit from more CO2, not less.

Science is demanding, never settled - always available for questioning and - upon discovery of new evidence - changing. Electricity and aviation are - to science - still theories - the theory of flight and the electron theory.

Flight and electricity remain scientific theories even though both - on a day-to-day basis - seem to work quite well, demonstrating the absurdity that "climate science" is "settled." Most "climate science" isn't science, nor is it "settled." Many questions remain, so we would be well-advised not to bet the farm on an untested "theory."

Fake news. Fake meat. Fake Science. Fake crisis. All created by environmental crusaders using fear and propaganda to create a multi-billion-dollar climate-crisis industry that doesn't want to be questioned by us commoners.

It's past time to start asking some questions, and, to that end, I host the website co2questions.com on which I've posted a few questions sorely in need of being asked ... and answered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his book "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom," apostate co-founder of Green Peace, Roger Moore, writes: "Awhile back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is man-made climate change going to endanger mankind or is it all a hoax?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The disarming case to act right now on climate change | Greta Thunberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists from The Nature Conservancy answered some of the most frequently asked climate change questions so that you have the facts you need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People around the world are witnessing firsthand how climate change can wreak havoc on the planet. Steadily rising average temperatures fuel increasingly intense wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters that are now impossible to ignore. And while the world has been plunged into a deadly pandemic, scientists are sounding the alarm once more that climate change is still the greatest threat to human health in recorded history.

As recently as August-when wildfires raged in the United States, Europe, and Siberia-World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement that "the risks posed by climate change could dwarf those of any single disease."

On September 5, more than 200 medical journals released an unprecedented joint editorial that urged world leaders to act. "The science is unequivocal," they write. "A global increase of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse."

Despite the acute dangers posed by COVID-19, the authors of the joint op-ed write that world governments "cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions." Instead, they argue, everyone must treat climate change with the same urgency as they have COVID-19.

Here's a look at the ways that climate change can affect your health-including some less obvious but still insidious effects-and why scientists say it's not too late to avert catastrophe.

Air pollution

Climate change is caused by an increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, mostly from fossil fuel emissions. But burning fossil fuels can also have direct consequences for human health. That's because the polluted air contains small particles that can induce stroke and heart attacks by penetrating the lungs and heart and even traveling into the bloodstream. Those particles might harm the organs directly or provoke an inflammatory response from the immune system as it tries to fight them off. Estimates suggest that air pollution causes anywhere between 3.6 million and nine million premature deaths a year.

"The numbers do vary," says Andy Haines, professor of environmental change and public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and author of the recently published book Planetary Health. "But they all agree that it's a big public health burden."

People over the age of 65 are most susceptible to the harmful effects of air pollution, but many others are at risk too, says Kari Nadeau, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. People who smoke or vape are at increased risk, as are children with asthma.

Air pollution also has consequences for those with allergies. Carbon dioxide increases the acidity of the air, which then pulls more pollen out from plants. For some people, this might just mean that they face annoyingly long bouts of seasonal allergies. But for others, it could be life-threatening.

"For people who already have respiratory disease, boy is that a problem," Nadeau says. When pollen gets into the respiratory pathway, the body creates mucus to get rid of it, which can then fill up and suffocate the lungs.

Even healthy people can have similar outcomes if pollen levels are especially intense. In 2016, in the Australian state of Victoria, a severe thunderstorm combined with high levels of pollen to induce what The Lancet has described as "the world's largest and most catastrophic epidemic of thunderstorm asthma." So many residents suffered asthma attacks that emergency rooms were overwhelmed-and at least 10 people died as a result.

Climate change is also causing wildfires to get worse, and wildfire smoke is especially toxic. As one recent study showed, fires can account for 25 percent of dangerous air pollution in the U.S. Nadeau explains that the smoke contains particles of everything that the fire has consumed along its path-from rubber tires to harmful chemicals. These particles are tiny and can penetrate even deeper into a person's lungs and organs. (Here's how breathing wildfire smoke affects the body.)

Extreme heat

Heat waves are deadly, but researchers at first didn't see direct links between climate change and the harmful impacts of heat waves and other extreme weather events. Haines says the evidence base has been growing. "We have now got a number of studies which has shown that we can with high confidence attribute health outcomes to climate change," he says.

Most recently, Haines points to a study published earlier this year in Nature Climate Change that attributes more than a third of heat-related deaths to climate change. As National Geographic reported at the time, the study found that the human toll was even higher in some countries with less access to air conditioning or other factors that render people more vulnerable to heat. (How climate change is making heat waves even deadlier.)

That's because the human body was not designed to cope with temperatures above 98.6°F, Nadeau says. Heat can break down muscles. The body does have some ways to deal with the heat-such as sweating. "But when it's hot outside all the time, you cannot cope with that, and your heart muscles and cells start to literally die and degrade," she says.

If you're exposed to extreme heat for too long and are unable to adequately release that heat, the stress can cause a cascade of problems throughout the body. The heart has to work harder to pump blood to the rest of the organs, while sweat leeches the body of necessary minerals such as sodium and potassium. The combination can result in heart attacks and strokes.

Dehydration from heat exposure can also cause serious damage to the kidneys, which rely on water to function properly. For people whose kidneys are already beginning to fail-particularly older adults-Nadeau says that extreme heat can be a death sentence. "This is happening more and more," she says.

Studies have also drawn links between higher temperatures and preterm birth and other pregnancy complications. It's unclear why, but Haines says that one hypothesis is that extreme heat reduces blood flow to the fetus.

Food insecurity

One of the less direct-but no less harmful-ways that climate change can affect health is by disrupting the world's supply of food.

Climate change both reduces the amount of food that's available and makes it less nutritious. According to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report, crop yields have already begun to decline as a result of rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events. Meanwhile, studies have shown that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can leech plants of zinc, iron, and protein-nutrients that humans need to survive.

Malnutrition is linked to a variety of illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. It can also increase the risk of stunting, or impaired growth, in children, which can harm cognitive function.

Climate change also imperils what we eat from the sea. Rising ocean temperatures have led many fish species to migrate toward Earth's poles in search of cooler waters. Haines says that the resulting decline of fish stocks in subtropic regions "has big implications for nutrition," because many of those coastal communities depend on fish for a substantial amount of the protein in their diets.

This effect is likely to be particularly harmful for Indigenous communities, says Tiff-Annie Kenny, a professor in the faculty of medicine at Laval University in Quebec who studies climate change and food security in the Canadian Arctic. It's much more difficult for these communities to find alternative sources of protein, she says, either because it's not there or because it's too expensive. "So what are people going to eat instead?" she asks.

Infectious diseases

As the planet gets hotter, the geographic region where ticks and mosquitoes like to live is getting wider. These animals are well-known vectors of diseases such as the Zika virus, dengue fever, and malaria. As they cross the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, Nadeau says, mosquitoes and ticks bring more opportunities for these diseases to infect greater swaths of the world.

"It used to be that they stayed in those little sectors near the Equator, but now unfortunately because of the warming of northern Europe and Canada, you can find Zika in places you wouldn't have expected," Nadeau says.

In addition, climate conditions such as temperature and humidity can impact the life cycle of mosquitoes. Haines says there's particularly good evidence showing that, in some regions, climate change has altered these conditions in ways that increase the risk of mosquitos transmitting dengue.

There are also several ways in which climate change is increasing the risk of diseases that can be transmitted through water, such as cholera, typhoid fever, and parasites. Sometimes that's fairly direct, such as when people interact with dirty floodwaters. But Haines says that drought can have indirect impacts when people, say, can't wash their hands or are forced to drink from dodgier sources of freshwater.

Mental health

A common result of any climate-linked disaster is the toll on mental health. The distress caused by drastic environmental change is so significant that it has been given its own name- solastalgia.

Nadeau says that the effects on mental health have been apparent in her studies of emergency room visits arising from wildfires in the western U.S. People lose their homes, their jobs, and sometimes their loved ones, and that takes an immediate toll. "What's the fastest acute issue that develops? It's psychological," she says. Extreme weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes cause so much stress and anxiety that they can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder and even suicide in the long run.

Another common factor is that climate change causes disproportionate harm to the world's most vulnerable people. On September 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an analysis showing that racial and ethnic minority communities are particularly at risk. According to the report, if temperatures rise by 2°C (3.6°F), Black people are 40 percent more likely to live in areas with the highest projected increases in related deaths. Another 34 percent are more likely to live in areas with a rise in childhood asthma.

Further, the effects of climate change don't occur in isolation. At any given time, a community might face air pollution, food insecurity, disease, and extreme heat all at once. Kenny says that's particularly devastating in communities where the prevalence of food insecurity and poverty are already high. This situation hasn't been adequately studied, she says, because "it's difficult to capture these shocks that climate can bring."

Why there's reason for hope

In recent years, scientists and environmental activists have begun to push for more research into the myriad health effects of climate change. "One of the striking things is there's been a real dearth of funding for climate change and health," Haines says. "For that reason, some of the evidence we have is still fragmentary."

Still, hope is not lost. In the Paris Agreement, countries around the world have pledged to limit global warming to below 2°C (3.6°F)-and preferably to 1.5°C (2.7°F)-by cutting their emissions. "When you reduce those emissions, you benefit health as well as the planet," Haines says.

Meanwhile, scientists and environmental activists have put forward solutions that can help people adapt to the health effects of climate change. These include early heat warnings and dedicated cooling centers, more resilient supply chains, and freeing healthcare facilities from dependence on the electric grid.

Nadeau argues that the COVID-19 pandemic also presents an opportunity for world leaders to think bigger and more strategically. For example, the pandemic has laid bare problems with efficiency and equity that have many countries restructuring their healthcare facilities. In the process, she says, they can look for new ways to reduce waste and emissions, such as getting more hospitals using renewable energy.

"This is in our hands to do," Nadeau says. "If we don't do anything, that would be cataclysmic."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why climate change is still the greatest threat to human health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polluted air and steadily rising temperatures are linked to health effects ranging from increased heart attacks and strokes to the spread of infectious diseases and psychological trauma.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do we work together to create a nation resilient against climate change?

Earlier today, NASA joined forces with FEMA to co-host their Resilient Nation Partnership Network Alliances for Climate Action Virtual Forum Series.

NASA Administrator Sen. Bill Nelson, Official Portrait, Monday, May 17, 2021, NASA Headquarters Mary W. Jackson Building in Washington. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls

NASA's researchers, innovators, and pioneers are on the forefront of climate action. NASA's Earth observation and research supports the Biden administration's climate agenda, which outlines putting the climate crisis at the center of our country's foreign policy and national security. President Biden has been clear: The climate crisis requires an all-hands-on-deck, whole-of-government approach.

Of course, we can't mitigate climate change unless we measure and understand it. That's NASA's expertise.

The sad reality is that climate change is already impacting our communities. The cost is enormous. It is loss of life. It is loss of livelihoods. And it is loss of communities. Unless we act, and we act decisively, the poorest among us will suffer disproportionately, and instability will increase - both here at home and abroad.
Get NASA's Climate Change News: Subscribe to the Newsletter "
Over the past year and a half, we have all experienced firsthand the importance of looking ahead and the importance of understanding and planning for potential disasters. The poorest and most vulnerable among us are too often those who pay the highest price for inaction.

The Biden administration has made advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities a top priority. It is such a priority, that President Biden signed an Executive Order to do just that on day one of his presidency.

The Biden administration has also focused on advancing environmental justice, which we know is closely linked with equity. Together, we need to further develop the capacity to monitor and reduce the detrimental impacts of hurricanes and floods. This will have a tremendous impact on America's underserved communities.

With the clear effects of climate change, the devastation from hurricanes and floods is severe, and growing more severe with each new year.

In the face of disasters, there are significant equity issues when it comes to which communities gets support, and when. But we need more. We need continued agency cooperation. We need a mission control center for climate change.

NASA uses a mission control center for every launch and mission. In the case of the International Space Station, it has operated 24/7, 365 for over two and a half decades. No less effort should be made to reverse the heating of our planet and to restore mother nature's environmental balance.

NASA is one of the world's greatest experts in climate science, engaged in a broad range of activities to track and mitigate the effects of climate change. And we are actively focusing on making that data available and useful to U.S. citizens and beyond.
Today I also announced that in addition to our existing Earth Science programs, we are exploring a new concept at NASA: A climate resilience design center that can help state, local, tribal, and territorial governments develop their climate resilience strategies.
This is not something that we can do alone. It is an endeavor that is going to take collaboration with other agencies, like FEMA, and it's going to take data from commercial companies and from international partners.

But as one of the lead U.S. climate science agencies, NASA will take a leading role in helping our nation, and the world, prepare for the challenges to come.

Our decisions will determine the fate of Earth. Let us protect it. Let us act boldly and with urgency. Let us preserve it for this generation - and generations that follow.

You can watch my full remarks here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national aeronautics and space administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Mission Control - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do we work together to create a nation resilient against climate change? Earlier today, NASA joined forces with FEMA to co-host their Resilient Nation Partnership Network Alliances for Climate Action Virtual Forum Series. NASA's researchers, innovators, and pioneers are on the forefront of climate action.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it says what this site is doing to help and how they might do it and how we can help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change is already impacting health in a myriad of ways, including by leading to death and illness from increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, storms and floods, the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, and mental health issues. Furthermore, climate change is undermining many of the social determinants for good health, such as livelihoods, equality and access to health care and social support structures. These climate-sensitive health risks are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, including women, children, ethnic minorities, poor communities, migrants or displaced persons, older populations and those with underlying health conditions.

In the short to medium term, the health impacts of climate change will be determined mainly by the vulnerability of populations, their resilience to the current rate of climate change and the extent and pace of adaptation. In the longer term, the effects will increasingly depend on the extent to which transformational action is taken now to reduce emissions and avoid the breaching of dangerous temperature thresholds and potential irreversible tipping points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The evidence is clear that climate change is already having a serious impact on human lives and health. It threatens the essential ingredients of good health - clean air, safe drinking water, nutritious food supply, and safe shelter - and has the potential to undermine decades of progress in global health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1157897

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© 2021 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, OARE, CHORUS, CLOCKSS, CrossRef and COUNTER.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)-Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[1]

Orator at Speakers' Corner in London, 1974

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in , which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used to justify speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided. With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example, the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries.

The Human Rights Measurement Initiative measures the right to opinion and expression for countries around the world, using a survey of in-country human rights experts.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.

Freedom of speech was vindicated by Erasmus and Milton. Edward Coke claimed freedom of speech as "an ancient custom of Parliament" in the 1590s, and it was affirmed in the Protestation of 1621. Restating what is written in the English Declaration of Right, 1689, England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament, which is still in effect. This so-called parliamentary privilege includes no possible defamation claims meaning Parliamentarians are free to speak up in the House without fear of legal action. This protection extends to written proceedings: for example, written and oral questions, motions and amendments tabled to bills and motions.

One of the world's first freedom of the press acts was introduced in Sweden in 1766 ( Swedish Freedom of the Press Act), mainly due to the classical liberal member of parliament and Ostrobothnian priest Anders Chydenius. In a report published in 1776, he wrote:

No evidence should be needed that a certain freedom of writing and printing is one of the strongest bulwarks of a free organization of the state, as, without it, the estates would not have sufficient information for the drafting of good laws, and those dispensing justice would not be monitored, nor would the subjects know the requirements of the law, the limits of the rights of government, and their responsibilities. Education and ethical conduct would be crushed; coarseness in thought, speech, and manners would prevail, and dimness would darken the entire sky of our freedom in a few years.

Under the leadership of Anders Chydenius, the Caps at the Swedish Riksdag in Gävle on December 2, 1766, passed the adoption of a freedom of the press regulation that stopped censorship and introduced the principle of public access to official records in Sweden. Excluded were defamation of the king's majesty and the Swedish Church.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The French Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas but three further distinct aspects:

1. the right to seek information and ideas;

2. the right to receive information and ideas;

3. the right to impart information and ideas

International, regional and national standards also recognise that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, whether orally, in writing, in print, through the internet or art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes the content and the means of expression.

The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights. It may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see limitations on freedom of speech). The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information, or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings. As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However, greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.

The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which play a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all. However, freedom of the press does not necessarily enable freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech. For example, if all the people who control the various mediums of publication suppress information or stifle the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. This limitation was famously summarised as "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one". Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".

Freedom of speech is usually seen as a negative right. This means that the government is legally obliged to take no action against the speaker based on the speaker's views, but that no one is obliged to help any speakers publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge the speaker or the speaker's views.

Permanent Free Speech Wall in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.

Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency. One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He has argued that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power can manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.

Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies". Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus". Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay".

Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact on the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries. Against this backdrop it is important that development agencies create grounds for effective support for a free press in developing countries.

Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others - family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community".

Laws of holocaust denial 2022[31]

Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some, with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property.

Some limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction, and others may occur through social disapprobation. In Saudi Arabia, Journalists are forbidden to write with disrespect or disapproval of the royal family, religion, or the government. Journalists are also not given any legal protection for their writing in Saudi Arabia. Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was a critic of the Saudi Arabian government. He was killed in 2018 by Saudi Arabian officials for his writing.

Some views are illegal to express because they are perceived by some to be harmful to others. This category often includes speech that is both false and potentially dangerous, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theatre and causing a panic. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the " harm principle" or the "offence principle".

In (1859), John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered". Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment.

In 1985, Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle". Feinberg wrote, "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offence (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end". Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. Nevertheless, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast, Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offence varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that several factors need to be taken into account when applying the offence principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and the general interest of the community at large.

Jasper Doomen argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offence is criticized as largely trivial.

In 1999, Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms".

Interpretations of both the harm and offense limitations to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. For instance, in Russia, the harm and offense principles have been used to justify the Russian LGBT propaganda law restricting speech (and action) concerning LGBT issues. Many European countries outlaw speech that might be interpreted as Holocaust denial. These include Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania. Armenian genocide denial is also illegal in some countries.

In some countries, blasphemy is a crime. For example, in Austria, defaming Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech. In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of Muhammad are protected under free speech law.

Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example, speech codes at state-operated schools.

In the U.S., the standing landmark opinion on political speech is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), expressly overruling Whitney v. California. In Brandenburg, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to the right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms:

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech protections in the United States almost absolute. Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence. See the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background.

Time, place and manner

Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate government interest. For example, a time, place, and manner restriction might prohibit a noisy political demonstration at a politician's home during the middle of the night, as that impinges upon the rights of the politician's neighbors to quiet enjoyment of their own homes. An otherwise identical activity might be permitted if it happened at a different time (e.g., during the day), at a different place (e.g., at a government building or in another public forum), or in a different manner (e.g., a silent protest). Funeral Protests are a complex issue in the United States. It is a right to Americans to be able to hold a peaceful protest against various policies they deem unreasonable. It is a question of whether or not it is appropriate through the time, place and manner outlook to protest funeral proceedings. Because of recent flare ups of this occurring, legislation has been put to action to limit this. Now, funeral protests are governed and prohibited by law on a state-to-state basis inside the United States.

The Free Speech Flag was created during the AACS encryption key controversy as "a symbol to show support for personal freedoms".[51]

Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech". International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of , the US Supreme Court partially overturned the law. Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:

The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar - in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.[...] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalising obscenity and child pornography. [...] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government's permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [...] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff's experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the " Information Society" in stating:

We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.

According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault, the public domain is under pressure from the " commodification of information" as information with previously little or no economic value has acquired independent economic value in the information age. This includes factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.

Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right. Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e., the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.

Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada. The Access to Information Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and any person or corporation present in Canada a right to access records of government institutions that are subject to the Act.

The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies". According to the Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: Mainland China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/ Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the " Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical. Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, including more than sixty regulations directed at the Internet. Censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.

Saudi Arabia's government had been intensifying the scrutiny of social media accounts, under which they were detaining several activists, critics and even normal social media users over few critical tweets. A law professor, Awad Al-Qarni became a victim of Saudi's internet censorship and was facing death sentence. Saudi-controlled media portrayed him as a dangerous preacher due to his Twitter and WhatsApp posts, but dissidents considered him as an important intellectual who maintained strong social media influence.

Some legal scholars (such as Tim Wu of Columbia University) have argued that the traditional issues of free speech-that "the main threat to free speech" is the censorship of "suppressive states", and that "ill-informed or malevolent speech" can and should be overcome by "more and better speech" rather than censorship-assumes scarcity of information. This scarcity prevailed during the 20th century, but with the arrival of the internet, information became plentiful, "but the attention of listeners" scarce. Furthermore, in the words of Wu, this "cheap speech" made possible by the internet " ... may be used to attack, harass, and silence as much as it is used to illuminate or debate". The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has argued that "censorship cannot be the only answer to disinformation online" and that tech companies "have a history of overcorrecting and censoring accurate, useful speech-or, even worse, reinforcing misinformation with their policies."

According to Wu, in the 21st century, the danger is not "suppressive states" that target "speakers directly", but that:

...targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing "troll armies" to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) "flooding" tactics (sometimes called "reverse censorship") that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots. As journalist Peter Pomerantsev writes, these techniques employ "information ... in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze."

Title page of Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or List of Prohibited Books (Venice, 1564)

Before the invention of the printing press, a written work, once created, could only be physically multiplied by highly laborious and error-prone manual copying. No elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed, who until the 14th century were restricted to religious institutions, and their works rarely caused wider controversy. In response to the printing press, and the theological heresies it allowed to spread, the Roman Catholic Church moved to impose censorship. Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture). The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.

In Panegyricae orationes septem (1596), Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship and argued that Johannes Gutenberg's printing press had resulted in a world infected by "pernicious lies"-so van Cuyck singled out the Talmud and the Qur'an, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.[74]

In 1501, Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books. In 1559, Pope Paul IV promulgated the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books. The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long-lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which presumed to be in authority over private thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others, it banned or censored books written by René Descartes, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, David Hume, John Locke, Daniel Defoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire. While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. Consequently, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.

First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in which he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643

The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton's response to the Parliament of England's re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers. Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license, Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood, stating:

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.

This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend (1260) was censored according to the Index Librorum Expurgatorum of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.[78][79]

Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a Protestant worldview. He thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the enlightenment of all people. Nevertheless, Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and "harmful" speech, Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views. Freedom of the press ceased being regulated in England in 1695 when the Licensing Order of 1643 was allowed to expire after the introduction of the Bill of Rights 1689 shortly after the Glorious Revolution. The emergence of publications like the (1709) and the (1711) are credited for creating a 'bourgeois public sphere' in England that allowed for a free exchange of ideas and information.

More governments attempted to centralize control as the "menace" of printing spread. The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild. Thirty years later, the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books". The right to print was restricted to two universities and the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637, printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers, and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.

A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront of early discussion on a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton (1608-74) and John Locke (1632-1704). Locke established the individual as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However, Locke's ideas evolved primarily around the concept of the right to seek salvation for one's soul. He was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke neither supported a universal toleration of peoples nor freedom of speech; according to his ideas, some groups, such as atheists, should not be allowed.

George Orwell statue at the headquarters of the BBC. A defence of free speech in an open society, the wall behind the statue is inscribed with the words "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear", words from George Orwell's proposed preface to Animal Farm (1945).[84]

By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre Bayle developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers. By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French philosophes like Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius. The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued 4 December 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee. However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict on 7 October 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argued that without human freedom, there could be no progress in science, law, or politics, which according to Mill, required free discussion of opinion. Mill's , published in 1859, became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression. Mill argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore, views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the march of truth, and by considering false views, the basis of true views could be re-affirmed. Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. It is generally held that for Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Neither economic or moral implications nor the speaker's own well-being would justify suppression of speech. However Mill in On Liberty suggests the speech of pimps - instigating clients and sex workers to have sex - should be restricted. This suggests he may be willing to restrict some speech that, while not harming others, undermines their decisional autonomy.

In her 1906 biography of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall coined the following sentence to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky stated, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise". Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters". Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see limitations above).

As chairman of the London-based PEN International, a club which defends freedom of expression and a free press, English author H. G. Wells met with Stalin in 1934 and was hopeful of reform in the Soviet Union. However, during their meeting in Moscow, Wells said, "the free expression of opinion-even of opposition opinion, I do not know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom here".

An "unexpurgated" edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover (1959)

The 1928 novel Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence was banned for obscenity in several countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and India. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, it was the subject of landmark court rulings that saw the ban for obscenity overturned. Dominic Sandbrook of The Telegraph in the UK wrote, "Now that public obscenity has become commonplace, it is hard to recapture the atmosphere of a society that saw fit to ban books such as Lady Chatterley's Lover because it was likely to 'deprave and corrupt' its readers". Fred Kaplan of The New York Times stated the overturning of the obscenity laws "set off an explosion of free speech" in the U.S. The 1960s also saw the Free Speech Movement, a massive long-lasting student protest on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, during the 1964-65 academic year.

In contrast to Anglophone nations, France was a haven for literary freedom. The innate French regard for the mind meant that France was disinclined to punish literary figures for their writing, and prosecutions were rare. While it was prohibited everywhere else, James Joyce's was published in Paris in 1922. Henry Miller's 1934 novel Tropic of Cancer (banned in the U.S. until 1963) and Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover were published in France decades before they were available in the respective authors' home countries.

In 1964 comedian Lenny Bruce was arrested in the U.S. due to complaints again about his use of various obscenities. A three-judge panel presided over his widely publicized six-month trial. He was found guilty of obscenity in November 1964. He was sentenced on 21 December 1964, to four months in a workhouse. He was set free on bail during the appeals process and died before the appeal was decided. On 23 December 2003, thirty-seven years after Bruce's death, New York Governor George Pataki granted him a posthumous pardon for his obscenity conviction.

In the United States, the right to freedom of expression has been interpreted to include the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge. This is not the case worldwide.

A map of nations which have Lèse-majesté laws as of September 2022

In some countries, people are not allowed to talk about certain things such as Lèse-majesté which is an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. Doing so constitutes an offence. For example, Saudi Arabia is responsible for executing journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. As he entered the Saudi embassy in Turkey, a team of Saudi assassins killed him. Another Saudi writer, Raif Badawi, was arrested in 2012 and lashed.

On 4 March 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill introducing prison sentences of up to 15 years for spreading "fake news" about Russia's military operation in Ukraine. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 Russians were prosecuted under "fake news" laws. The 1993 Russian Constitution expressly prohibits censorship in Article 29 of Chapter 2, Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen.

Curtis, Michael Kent (2000). Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822325292.

Doomen, Jasper (2014). Freedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State. Bruylant. ISBN 9782802746232.

Godwin, Mike (2003). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. MIT Press. ISBN 0262571684.

Kors, Alan Charles (2008). "Freedom of Speech". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 182-85. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n112. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.

Lewis, Anthony (2007). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465039173. OCLC 494134545.

McLeod, Kembrew (2007). Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. Lawrence Lessig (foreword). University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0816650316.

Nelson, Samuel P. (2005). Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801881730.

Semeraro, Pietro (2009). L'esercizio di un diritto. Giuffre Milano.

Shaw, Caroline. "Freedom of expression and the palladium of British liberties, 1650-2000: A review essay". History Compass (Oct 2020). Online.

Minorities, Free Speech and the Internet. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2023.

Jean Bricmont (2014), La république des censeurs, L'Herne, 176p.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Millions of black people affected by racial bias in health-care ...https://www.nature.com › news

# data[].attributes.subject
Millions of black people affected by racial bias in health-care ...https://www.nature.com › news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech | Free U.S. Government Articles for Students in Grades 7-10 | We the People Scholastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is freedom of speech? Learn how the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects our freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Is Freedom of Speech an Important Right? When, if Ever, Can It Be Limited? (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though the concept of freedom of speech on its face seems quite simple, in reality there are complex lines that can be drawn around what kinds of speech are protected and in what setting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Girls and boys see gender inequality in their homes and communities every day - in textbooks, in the media and among the adults who care for them.

Parents may assume unequal responsibility for household work, with mothers bearing the brunt of caregiving and chores. The majority of low-skilled and underpaid community health workers who attend to children are also women, with limited opportunity for professional growth.

And in schools, many girls receive less support than boys to pursue the studies they choose. This happens for a variety of reasons: The safety, hygiene and sanitation needs of girls may be neglected, barring them from regularly attending class. Discriminatory teaching practices and education materials also produce gender gaps in learning and skills development. As a result, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Worldwide, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Yet, in early childhood, gender disparities start out small. Girls have higher survival rates at birth, are more likely to be developmentally on track, and are just as likely to participate in preschool. Among those who reach secondary school, girls tend to outperform boys in reading across every country where data are available.

But the onset of adolescence can bring significant barriers to girls' well-being. Gender norms and discrimination heighten their risk of unwanted pregnancy, HIV and AIDS, and malnutrition. Especially in emergency settings and in places where menstruation remains taboo, girls are cut off from the information and supplies they need to stay healthy and safe.

In its most insidious form, gender inequality turns violent. Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million - have experienced forced sex. In times of both peace and conflict, adolescent girls face the highest risk of gender-based violence. Hundreds of millions of girls worldwide are still subjected to child marriage and female genital mutilation - even though both have been internationally recognized as human rights violations. And violence can occur at birth, like in places where female infanticide is known to persist.

Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million globally - have experienced forced sex in their lifetimes.

Harmful gender norms are perpetuated at the highest levels. In some countries, they become entrenched in laws and policies that fail to uphold - or that even violate - girls' rights, like laws that restrict women from inheriting property. Boys also suffer from gender norms: Social conceptions of masculinity can fuel child labour, gang violence, disengagement from school, and recruitment into armed groups.

Despite major hurdles that still deny them equal rights, girls refuse to limit their ambitions. Since the signing of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995 - the most comprehensive policy agenda for gender equality - the world has seen uneven progress.

More and more girls are attending and completing school, and fewer are getting married or becoming mothers while still children themselves. But discrimination and limiting stereotypes remain rife. Technological change and humanitarian emergencies are also confronting girls with new challenges, while old ones - violence, institutionalized biases, poor learning and life opportunities - persist.

That's why girls from all walks of life are boldly raising their voices against inequality. Girl-led movements are stopping child marriage and female genital mutilation, demanding action on climate change, and trail-blazing in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) - asserting their power as global change-makers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equal rights and opportunities for girls and boys help all children fulfil their potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Freedom of Religion

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of " blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech, and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

Right to Assemble / Right to Petition

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedom of assembly is recognized as a human right under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating with groups that engage in and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through litigation or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

Federal Material

U.S. Constitution

First Amendment

Fifth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment

Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press?

Religion and Expression

Right of Association

Federal Judicial Decisions

State Material

State Judicial Decisions

International Material

Conventions and Treaties

Key Internet Sources

The First Amendment Encyclopedia (Middle Tennessee State University)

Freedom of Expression (National Endowment for the Arts)

Freedom Forum First Amendment Center

EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers

LII Sitewide: First Amendment

Supreme Court Cases Overview 2000 - 2019

Additional Topics

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.body
.

Fears of unlikely federal gun-control measures lead to raft of state laws

.

6 hours ago

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

Gun violence is a daily scourge that threatens our most fundamental right: the right to life. More than 600 people die every day as a result of firearms violence, which is driven in part by easy access to firearms - whether legal or illegal.

Anyone can be affected by gun violence, but it often disproportionately impacts people of colour, men and boys in deprived communities, and other marginalized groups. Domestic violence involving firearms also puts women at heightened risk of death or life-changing injuries.

Sometimes, the mere presence of firearms can make people feel threatened and fearful for their lives. They may be too afraid to attend schools or health facilities. Community-wide gun violence may prevent services from fully functioning, which can harm access to education or healthcare.

The vast majority of gun violence occurs outside of armed conflict settings. A significant proportion - in some states more than half - of firearm deaths are caused by suicide and accidents.

Our human rights are not protected if our leaders fail to tackle and end the epidemic of gun violence and gun deaths.

Previous Next

What is gun violence?

Gun violence is violence committed with firearms, such as handguns, shotguns, or semi-automatic rifles. More than 600 people are estimated to die every day from gun violence with two-thirds of gun-related deaths, including suicides, occurring in just six countries (in descending order): Brazil, the USA, Venezuela, Mexico, India and Colombia.

Up to 71% of all homicides globally involve gun violence. The majority of victims and perpetrators are young men, but women are at particular risk of violence from an intimate partner possessing a firearm. Sexual violence can also be perpetrated at gunpoint.

Firearms cause devastating injuries that leave a lasting impact on mental and physical health. Some gunshot victims need intensive, lifelong care. Others may lose their ability to work. Many have little or no access to programmes that offer adequate long-term care and rehabilitation.

How many guns are there?

More than 1 billion firearms are in circulation globally. The vast majority - 85%- are in the hand of private individuals, 13% are in military arsenals and 2% are owned by law enforcement agencies.

Gun violence committed by private individuals is typically concentrated in low-income urban neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, including drug trafficking. Many of these areas are blighted by inadequate policing or policing which does not comply with international standards on human rights and law enforcement, and a lack of access to public services.

Therefore, easy access to and proliferation of firearms, combined with socio-economic factors, can have a harmful impact on the community's full range of human rights.

Gun violence and the right to health
Gun violence can rob people of their lives, health and right to healthcare.
People living in communities plagued by firearm violence may find it difficult or even dangerous to access health care facilities. This is especially true in areas where neighbourhoods are partitioned by armed criminal gangs or subject to curfews due to insecurity.

Gun violence can also deter local authorities and NGOs from setting up community health services, and contributes to poor staff retention. Survivors of domestic violence often do not have the essential psychological support or safe accommodation they need in neighbourhoods wracked by firearm violence.

The psychological toll from rampant gun violence is often heavy, particularly for victims, their family members and those who have witnessed shootings. Survivors may be left with debilitating and life-changing injuries which require long-term medical and social care.

Gun violence and the right to education

Mass shootings and other firearm violence can disrupt children's education and make students' journeys to and from school dangerous.

Endemic gun violence damages the learning environment by disrupting school attendance and rates of retention, and makes it harder to recruit and retain teaching staff.

This can, in turn, lead to poorer outcomes for students in terms of employment and income. It can also perpetuate cycles of deprivation, crime and violence.

Gun violence exacerbates the impact of systemic discrimination.
In 2020, 60.9% of the 19,995 people killed by gun homicide in the US were African Americans, despite African Americans making up just 13% of the US population.

Black men and boys aged 15-34 are more than 10 times more likely to die from firearm homicide than white men and boys of the same age group.

Failure to address systemic discrimination; failure to keep firearms out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them; and a failure to invest in gun violence prevention programmes all contribute to this crisis.
Women facing domestic violence and children are also disproportionately affected by gun violence.
In 2020, the ratio of women in the Caribbean killed in gun violence was more than three times the global average. In the USA, guns are now the leading cause of death for children. Furthermore, between 2% and 7% of all injuries treated at US paediatric trauma centres are gun-related.

Gun Violence Figures Worldwide

How can governments stop gun violence?

Effectively implemented gun regulation and evidence-based violence prevention projects can stop the carnage.

As a first step, states should recognize firearm violence as a threat to people's human rights, in particular their rights to life, to physical integrity and security of person, and to health.

Gun regulation and gun licences

States can set up some basic systems to regulate how private individuals can own and use firearms and ammunition to prevent them from using firearms to abuse human rights.

International standards recommend prohibiting any possession of firearms without a licence; that states should register all firearms; and that unlicensed possession should be treated as a criminal offence.

A firearms licence should be subject to certain criteria. For example, the applicant should undergo a comprehensive background check to identify any risks, such as:

a criminal record - especially for violent behaviour in the home or community; history of gender-based, sexual or domestic violence;

history of problematic use of drugs/alcohol, emotional issues, mental health conditions and

any other circumstances which heighten the risks of the harm to self or others using firearms.

Gun licences should be time-limited and training on how to use the weapon should be mandatory. The number and type of weapons that an individual can possess should also be strictly limited in line with the principles of necessity and credible justification.

Some firearms and ammunition represent an unacceptable level of risk to public safety and should be banned for personal use. These should include, at a minimum, fully automatic firearms, semi-automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic submachine guns.

Does gun reform work?

Yes, gun reform works. Almost all countries regulate gun acquisition, possession and use in some form. Most do this by licensing users and registering firearms.

Gun reform works in parts of the world where there are strict controls on access to firearms and well-enforced firearms regulations. This is the case for much of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia. For example, in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the rate of firearm violence is extremely low.

What does Amnesty do about gun violence?

Amnesty International is campaigning to strengthen regulations on firearm sale, transfer, use and possession. We support the creation of evidence-based violence reduction programmes in communities with persistently high levels of firearms violence.

You can stand up and remind our leaders of their obligation to keep us safe. You can play a crucial role in campaigning and protesting against gun violence and making it clear to governments that they must tackle this through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.
You have the power to tell governments that by using gun laws, we can all live safely and without fear - which is our right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have the right to be safe from gun violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More information coming soon

Women make up more than two-thirds of the world's 750 million adults without basic literacy skills; women represent less than 30% of the world's researchers; and women journalists are more exposed to assault, threat or physical, verbal or digital attack than their male counterparts.

UNESCO believes that all forms of discrimination based on gender are violations of human rights, as well as a significant barrier to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Our message is clear: women and men must enjoy equal opportunities, choices, capabilities, power and knowledge as equal citizens. Equipping girls and boys, women and men with the knowledge, values, attitudes and skills to tackle gender disparities is a precondition to building a sustainable future for all.

Special Focus

International Days

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More information coming soon Women make up more than two-thirds of the world's 750 million adults without basic literacy skills; women represent less than 30% of the world's researchers; and women journalists are more exposed to assault, threat or physical, verbal or digital attack than their male counterparts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under the El Paso program, begun in mid-2017, adults who crossed the border without permission - a misdemeanor for a first-time offender - were detained and criminally charged. No exceptions were made for parents arriving with young children. The children were taken from them, and parents were unable to track or reunite with their children because the government failed to create a system to facilitate reunification. By late 2017, the government was separating families along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, including families arriving through official ports of entry.

On May 7, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had implemented a "zero tolerance" policy, dictating that all migrants who cross the border without permission, including those seeking asylum, be referred to the DOJ for prosecution. Undocumented asylum seekers were imprisoned, and any accompanying children under the age of 18 were handed over to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which shipped them miles away from their parents and scattered them among 100 Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters and other care arrangements across the country. Hundreds of these children, including infants and toddlers, were under the age of 5.

Prior to the Trump administration, families were generally paroled into the country to await their immigration cases or detained together.

The following is a timeline of family separation under President Trump, beginning less than two months after he took office following a campaign in which he called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals.
Photo John Moore/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family separation under the Trump administration - a timeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Long before the Trump administration implemented its "zero tolerance" immigration enforcement policy in 2018, it was already separating children from their parents as part of a "pilot program" conducted in the El Paso, Texas, area and along other parts of the border.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world’s plastic pollution crisis, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much of the planet is swimming in discarded plastic, which is harming animal and possibly human health. Can plastic pollution be cleaned up?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

"Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics such as innocence and the need for protection. Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent," said author Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. The study was published online in APA's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology®.

Researchers tested 176 police officers, mostly white males, average age 37, in large urban areas, to determine their levels of two distinct types of bias - prejudice and unconscious dehumanization of black people by comparing them to apes. To test for prejudice, researchers had officers complete a widely used psychological questionnaire with statements such as "It is likely that blacks will bring violence to neighborhoods when they move in." To determine officers' dehumanization of blacks, the researchers gave them a psychological task in which they paired blacks and whites with large cats, such as lions, or with apes. Researchers reviewed police officers' personnel records to determine use of force while on duty and found that those who dehumanized blacks were more likely to have used force against a black child in custody than officers who did not dehumanize blacks. The study described use of force as takedown or wrist lock; kicking or punching; striking with a blunt object; using a police dog, restraints or hobbling; or using tear gas, electric shock or killing. Only dehumanization and not police officers' prejudice against blacks - conscious or not - was linked to violent encounters with black children in custody, according to the study.

The authors noted that police officers' unconscious dehumanization of blacks could have been the result of negative interactions with black children, rather than the cause of using force with black children. "We found evidence that overestimating age and culpability based on racial differences was linked to dehumanizing stereotypes, but future research should try to clarify the relationship between dehumanization and racial disparities in police use of force," Goff said.

The study also involved 264 mostly white, female undergraduate students from large public U.S. universities. In one experiment, students rated the innocence of people ranging from infants to 25-year-olds who were black, white or an unidentified race. The students judged children up to 9 years old as equally innocent regardless of race, but considered black children significantly less innocent than other children in every age group beginning at age 10, the researchers found.

The students were also shown photographs alongside descriptions of various crimes and asked to assess the age and innocence of white, black or Latino boys ages 10 to 17. The students overestimated the age of blacks by an average of 4.5 years and found them more culpable than whites or Latinos, particularly when the boys were matched with serious crimes, the study found. Researchers used questionnaires to assess the participants' prejudice and dehumanization of blacks. They found that participants who implicitly associated blacks with apes thought the black children were older and less innocent.

In another experiment, students first viewed either a photo of an ape or a large cat and then rated black and white youngsters in terms of perceived innocence and need for protection as children. Those who looked at the ape photo gave black children lower ratings and estimated that black children were significantly older than their actual ages, particularly if the child had been accused of a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

"The evidence shows that perceptions of the essential nature of children can be affected by race, and for black children, this can mean they lose the protection afforded by assumed childhood innocence well before they become adults," said co-author Matthew Jackson, PhD, also of UCLA. "With the average age overestimation for black boys exceeding four-and-a-half years, in some cases, black children may be viewed as adults when they are just 13 years old."

Article: "The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published online Feb. 24, 2014; Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, and Matthew Christian Jackson, PhD; University of California, Los Angeles; Brooke Allison, PhD, and Lewis Di Leone, PhD, National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Boston; Carmen Marie Culotta, PhD, Pennsylvania State University; and Natalie Ann DiTomasso, JD, University of Pennsylvania.

Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, can be contacted by phone at (310) 206-8614 (preferred) or by email. If Goff is unavailable, contact Matthew Christian Jackson, PhD, by phone at (814) 574-9781 or by email.

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black boys viewed as older, less innocent than Whites, research finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
it has really good information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The path to innovation is not always a smooth, straight line. In some cases, it's U-shaped.

In September, a 2,000-foot-long floating barrier, shaped like a U, was dispatched to the Great Pacific garbage patch between Hawaii and California, where roughly 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic have formed a floating field of debris roughly twice the size of Texas. Made of connected plastic pipes, the barrier was meant to catch and clean-up the plastic.

Invented by Boyan Slat when he was just 17, the barrier has so far done some of what it was designed to accomplish. It travels with wind and wave propulsion, like a U-shaped Pac-Man hungry for plastic. It orients itself in the wind and it catches and concentrates plastic, sort of.

But as Slat, now 24, recently discovered with the beta tester for his design, plastic occasionally drifts out of its U-shaped funnel. The other issue with the beta tester, called System 001, is that last week, a 60-feet-long end section broke off.

The first issue, Slat said, was likely due to the device's speed. In a September interview with NPR, he said the device averages about four inches per second, which his team has now concluded is too slow. The break in the barrier was due to an issue with the material used to build it.

"In principle, I think we are relatively close to getting it working," Slat said in an interview Saturday with NPR's Michel Martin. "It's just that sometimes the plastic is also escaping again. Likely what we have to do is we have to speed up the system so that it constantly moves faster than the plastic."

For the material failure, Slat said his team will probably try to locally reinforce the system to combat the problem of material fatigue.

"If you have a paper clip and you move that back and forward many times, essentially the material gets weaker," he said. "That's likely what has happened with material of the cleanup system."

Slat and the team at his nonprofit, The Ocean Cleanup, are now bringing the system back to Hawaii for repairs and upgrades. Slat told NPR in 2016 that his structure is 10 times further away from land than the world's most remote oil rig, subject to battering waves and storms.

When the material failure occurred, it wasn't due to the result of a major Pacific storm. It was just normal wear and tear, Slat said.

"We've had conditions twice as worse as we had last weekend, but the system already sort of moved back and forth about 1.5 million times since it's been out there," he said.

With an estimated cost of $24.6 million reported by Forbes, and a challenging work environment, the project is high-risk and Slat hopes, high-reward.

But experts on plastic pollution have expressed concerns about the project's effectiveness.

George Leonard, chief scientist at Ocean Conservancy, told NPR in September that only 3 to 5 percent of the total amount of ocean plastic actually winds up in systems of circulating currents. He estimates that about 8 million metric tons of plastic go into the ocean each year - roughly the equivalent of one dump truck full of plastic every minute.

Critics say efforts should be aimed at preventing plastics from going into the ocean in the first place, and that Slat's barrier project could divert resources away from that goal. Others have expressed concern about the barrier's impact on marine wildlife.

Slat said that marine wildlife is be able to safely pass underneath a 10-foot deep screen under the pipe meant to catch debris. However, Wired reported that the pipes could attract and lead animals straight into plastic-polluted waters, and may also shed nano-sized particles of plastic into the water when hit with the sun's rays.

The concern is that ultraviolet light from the sun can potentially disintegrate the plastic, but The Ocean Cleanup responded by telling Wired that the high-density polyethylene plastic used in their tubes can reflect UV radiation.

Slat's confidence in his design hasn't wavered, and said he was unfazed by the current setbacks.

"Considering the things we have been able to prove in the past few months and considering the problems that we have faced, they seem quite solvable," he said. "I'm confident that the team will be able to design appropriate solutions for this and that we'll have the system back in the patch in a few months from now."

His team hopes to make the system fully operational sometime this year. If the project succeeds, Slat's vision is to deploy a fleet of 60 more devices, projected to remove half of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch's plastic within five years.

In this vision, one he has held since his teens, support vessels would act like ocean garbage trucks; ships would carry the plastics back to land, where they would be processed, recycled, and reused - not dumped back into the ocean.
The audio for this story was produced by Dana Cronin and edited by Natalie Winston.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Engineering Wunderkind's Ocean Plastics Cleanup Device Hits A Setback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four months into its testing phase, the Ocean Cleanup's plastic-catching device isn't catching as much plastic as intended.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKgKaQzil1A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child Social Experiment Looks At Gender Equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Girls and boys see gender inequality in their homes and communities every day - in textbooks, in the media and among the adults who care for them.

Parents may assume unequal responsibility for household work, with mothers bearing the brunt of caregiving and chores. The majority of low-skilled and underpaid community health workers who attend to children are also women, with limited opportunity for professional growth.

And in schools, many girls receive less support than boys to pursue the studies they choose. This happens for a variety of reasons: The safety, hygiene and sanitation needs of girls may be neglected, barring them from regularly attending class. Discriminatory teaching practices and education materials also produce gender gaps in learning and skills development. As a result, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Worldwide, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Yet, in early childhood, gender disparities start out small. Girls have higher survival rates at birth, are more likely to be developmentally on track, and are just as likely to participate in preschool. Among those who reach secondary school, girls tend to outperform boys in reading across every country where data are available.

But the onset of adolescence can bring significant barriers to girls' well-being. Gender norms and discrimination heighten their risk of unwanted pregnancy, HIV and AIDS, and malnutrition. Especially in emergency settings and in places where menstruation remains taboo, girls are cut off from the information and supplies they need to stay healthy and safe.

In its most insidious form, gender inequality turns violent. Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million - have experienced forced sex. In times of both peace and conflict, adolescent girls face the highest risk of gender-based violence. Hundreds of millions of girls worldwide are still subjected to child marriage and female genital mutilation - even though both have been internationally recognized as human rights violations. And violence can occur at birth, like in places where female infanticide is known to persist.

Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million globally - have experienced forced sex in their lifetimes.

Harmful gender norms are perpetuated at the highest levels. In some countries, they become entrenched in laws and policies that fail to uphold - or that even violate - girls' rights, like laws that restrict women from inheriting property. Boys also suffer from gender norms: Social conceptions of masculinity can fuel child labour, gang violence, disengagement from school, and recruitment into armed groups.

Despite major hurdles that still deny them equal rights, girls refuse to limit their ambitions. Since the signing of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995 - the most comprehensive policy agenda for gender equality - the world has seen uneven progress.

More and more girls are attending and completing school, and fewer are getting married or becoming mothers while still children themselves. But discrimination and limiting stereotypes remain rife. Technological change and humanitarian emergencies are also confronting girls with new challenges, while old ones - violence, institutionalized biases, poor learning and life opportunities - persist.

That's why girls from all walks of life are boldly raising their voices against inequality. Girl-led movements are stopping child marriage and female genital mutilation, demanding action on climate change, and trail-blazing in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) - asserting their power as global change-makers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equal rights and opportunities for girls and boys help all children fulfil their potential.

# data[].attributes.headline
A textual analysis of the role of women in historical fiction

# data[].attributes.subject
A textual analysis of the role of women in historical fiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A textual analysis of the role of women in historical fiction for

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world’s plastic pollution crisis, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much of the planet is swimming in discarded plastic, which is harming animal and possibly human health. Can plastic pollution be cleaned up?

# data[].attributes.headline
It's Frustratingly Rare to Find a Novel About Women That's Not About Love 

# data[].attributes.subject
It's Frustratingly Rare to Find a Novel About Women That's Not About Love 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Great" books, as defined by the Western canon, didn't contain female protagonists I could admire. In fact, they barely contained female protagonists at all. Of the 100 Best Novels compiled by Modern Library, only nine have women in the leading role, and in only one of those books-- The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark--do the leading women strive to do more than find a husband or raise their children. Statistically, one percent of the Best Novels are about women doing something other than loving.

To be clear, I love a beautifully told love story. I cry during The Notebook and love Mr. Darcy. I'd just as soon advocate for the banning of metaphors as I would for the banning of stories about love (which is to say never). Love stories are needed because they mirror real life. Men and women alike search for and find partners--be they for a moment or a lifetime. Love stories are huge plot lines in real life, but they aren't everything.

These days, most women develop personal lives before love lives. They struggle, make decisions, and grow up long before they worry about finding a life partner. Women are getting married later with the average marrying age at 27 according to the most recent Pew Report. That's four years older than in 1990. Additionally, women's roles in the workforce have changed radically in the last 50 years. Though incomes between men and women still remain unequal, more women are joining and staying in the workforce, even after they have kids. Their literary counterparts, however, don't reflect that.

Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping is different. Housekeeping was the first book I ever read about women that didn't feature a love line. There is no love interest, no sex, and no important man in Housekeeping. It is a book solely about growing up, because that in itself is a story.

Housekeeping follows the lives of two sisters, Ruth and Lucille, who are moved to the beautifully desolate Fingerbone, Idaho to live with family members after their mother's death. Their guardianship changes several times before finally ending with their Aunt Sylvie, an eccentric woman who lives a transient lifestyle and eventually drives the girls apart.

Ruth grows up in the book. As the narrator, she describes her own frustrations and confusions. Robinson's book is full of Ruth's anguish and loneliness: the suffering of transitory adulthood. At times the novel is as barren and icy as the frozen lake it is set around. The characters often ignore each other and sometimes themselves. As Ruth and Lucille are forced to cope with the death of their relatives, they must learn to live their own lives. Ultimately, Housekeeping isn't an easy book to read, and it doesn't wrap up neatly. Life doesn't wrap up neatly.

There is no love plotline in Housekeeping, because not every story needs one. No one expects Holden Caulfield to find love at the end of his self-explorative adventure, and we shouldn't expect every female character to either. Coming of age novels are supposed to be about finding yourself, not finding someone else. Ruth doesn't think about boys or talk about them; she grapples with loneliness and longing and losing her family, her dreams, and her sister.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Frustratingly Rare to Find a Novel About Women That's Not About Love

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Great" books, as defined by the Western canon, didn't contain female protagonists I could admire. In fact, they barely contained female protagonists at all. Of the 100 Best Novels compiled by Modern Library, only nine have women in the leading role, and in only one of those books-- The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark--do the leading women strive to do more than find a husband or raise their children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Girls and boys see gender inequality in their homes and communities every day - in textbooks, in the media and among the adults who care for them.

Parents may assume unequal responsibility for household work, with mothers bearing the brunt of caregiving and chores. The majority of low-skilled and underpaid community health workers who attend to children are also women, with limited opportunity for professional growth.

And in schools, many girls receive less support than boys to pursue the studies they choose. This happens for a variety of reasons: The safety, hygiene and sanitation needs of girls may be neglected, barring them from regularly attending class. Discriminatory teaching practices and education materials also produce gender gaps in learning and skills development. As a result, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Worldwide, nearly 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are neither employed nor in education or training - compared to 1 in 10 boys.

Yet, in early childhood, gender disparities start out small. Girls have higher survival rates at birth, are more likely to be developmentally on track, and are just as likely to participate in preschool. Among those who reach secondary school, girls tend to outperform boys in reading across every country where data are available.

But the onset of adolescence can bring significant barriers to girls' well-being. Gender norms and discrimination heighten their risk of unwanted pregnancy, HIV and AIDS, and malnutrition. Especially in emergency settings and in places where menstruation remains taboo, girls are cut off from the information and supplies they need to stay healthy and safe.

In its most insidious form, gender inequality turns violent. Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million - have experienced forced sex. In times of both peace and conflict, adolescent girls face the highest risk of gender-based violence. Hundreds of millions of girls worldwide are still subjected to child marriage and female genital mutilation - even though both have been internationally recognized as human rights violations. And violence can occur at birth, like in places where female infanticide is known to persist.

Some 1 in 20 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 - around 13 million globally - have experienced forced sex in their lifetimes.

Harmful gender norms are perpetuated at the highest levels. In some countries, they become entrenched in laws and policies that fail to uphold - or that even violate - girls' rights, like laws that restrict women from inheriting property. Boys also suffer from gender norms: Social conceptions of masculinity can fuel child labour, gang violence, disengagement from school, and recruitment into armed groups.

Despite major hurdles that still deny them equal rights, girls refuse to limit their ambitions. Since the signing of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995 - the most comprehensive policy agenda for gender equality - the world has seen uneven progress.

More and more girls are attending and completing school, and fewer are getting married or becoming mothers while still children themselves. But discrimination and limiting stereotypes remain rife. Technological change and humanitarian emergencies are also confronting girls with new challenges, while old ones - violence, institutionalized biases, poor learning and life opportunities - persist.

That's why girls from all walks of life are boldly raising their voices against inequality. Girl-led movements are stopping child marriage and female genital mutilation, demanding action on climate change, and trail-blazing in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) - asserting their power as global change-makers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equal rights and opportunities for girls and boys help all children fulfil their potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Rights: Definition, Issues, and Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal rights advocates believe that non-human animals should be free to live as they wish, without being used, exploited, or otherwise interfered with by humans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why do so few men read books by women? | MA Sieghart

# data[].attributes.subject
Why do so few men read books by women? | MA Sieghart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he byline at the top of this piece reads MA Sieghart, not Mary Ann. Why? Because I really want men to read it too. Female authors through the centuries, from the Brontë sisters to George Eliot to JK Rowling, have felt obliged to disguise their gender to persuade boys and men to read their books. But now? Is it really still necessary? The sad answer is yes.

For my book The Authority Gap, which looks at why women are still taken less seriously than men, I commissioned Nielsen Book Research to find out exactly who was reading what. I wanted to know whether female authors were not just deemed less authoritative than men, but whether they were being read by men in the first place. And the results confirmed my suspicion that men were disproportionately unlikely even to open a book by a woman.

For the top 10 bestselling female authors (who include Jane Austen and Margaret Atwood, as well as Danielle Steel and Jojo Moyes), only 19% of their readers are men and 81%, women. But for the top 10 bestselling male authors (who include Charles Dickens and JRR Tolkien, as well as Lee Child and Stephen King), the split is much more even: 55% men and 45% women.

In other words, women are prepared to read books by men, but many fewer men are prepared to read books by women. And the female author in the top 10 who had the biggest male readership - the thriller writer LJ Ross - uses her initials, so it's possible the guys thought she was one of them. What does this tell us about how reluctant men are to accord equal authority - intellectual, artistic, cultural - to women and men?

Margaret Atwood, a writer who should be on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction, has a readership that is only 21% male. Male fellow Booker prize winners Julian Barnes and Yann Martel have nearly twice as many (39% and 40%). It's not as if women are less good at writing literary fiction. All five of the top five bestselling literary novels in 2017 were by women, and nine of the top 10. And it's not as if men don't enjoy reading books by women when they do open them; in fact, they marginally prefer them. The average rating men give to books by women on Goodreads is 3.9 out of 5; for books by men, it's 3.8.

The average rating men give to books by women on Goodreads is 3.9 out of 5; for books by men, it's 3.8

Turning to nonfiction, which is read by slightly more men than women, the pattern is similar, though not quite so striking. Men still read male authors much more than female ones, but the discrepancy isn't so large because women tend to do the same in favour of female authors. But there is still quite a difference. Women are 65% more likely to read a nonfiction book by the opposite sex than men are. All this suggests that men, consciously or unconsciously, don't accord female authors as much authority as male ones. Or they make the lazy assumption that women's books aren't for them without trying them out to see whether this is true.

Why does this matter? For a start, it narrows men's experiences of the world. "I've known this for a very long time, that men just aren't interested in reading our literature," the Booker prize-winning novelist Bernardine Evaristo told me in an interview for The Authority Gap. "Our literature is one of the ways in which we explore narrative, we explore our ideas, we develop our intellect, our imagination. If we're writing women's stories, we're talking about the experiences of women. We also talk about male experiences from a female perspective. And so if they're not interested in that, I think that it's very damning and it's extremely worrying."

If men don't read books by and about women, they will fail to understand our psyches and our lived experience. They will continue to see the world through an almost entirely male lens, with the male experience as the default. And this narrow focus will affect our relationships with them, as colleagues, as friends and as partners. But it also impoverishes female writers, whose work is seen as niche rather than mainstream if it is consumed mainly by other women. They will earn less respect, less status and less money.

The novelist Kamila Shamsie has sat on a number of prize judging panels and has witnessed exactly this asymmetry. "The women judges are putting forward books by both men and women," she told me. "And the male judges are largely putting forward books by other men."

Breaking down the bookshelf bias ... Mary Ann Sieghart. Photograph: PR

Dolly Alderton is a highly successful writer, whose memoir Everything I Know about Love won the 2018 National Book Award for best autobiography. Yet in Britain, at least, it had almost no interest from men. Every newspaper and magazine journalist sent to interview her was a woman and it was, as she told me, "marketed and perceived and received as something incredibly niche by dint of my gender. Yet a female experience is not a niche experience; it's a universal common interest."

Yet, when she went on a publicity tour to Denmark, it was quite different. She told the male journalist who had been sent to interview her that he was the first ever. "He couldn't believe how weird that was. He was in his 20s and said he and his friends read memoirs or fiction by women just as much as those by men." Things can be different. And it's a very easy problem for men to fix. All they have to do is actively seek out books by female authors.

If men are sceptical that women will write about subjects that interest them, they could try Pat Barker on the first world war or Hilary Mantel on the machinations of Henry VIII's court. Once they become used to it, they may even find that these turn into human stories rather than niche female ones - and that they enjoy them.

Men can gain a huge amount from broadening their minds and their tastes. Just because a book is written by a woman or is about women doesn't mean it has nothing to offer them. It opens their eyes to what it's like to live as a woman in the world, the first step to learning empathy. And it may help to burst the bubble many men have been inadvertently living in, allowing new thoughts and insights to germinate. Isn't that what the arts are for?

Mary Ann Sieghart's The Authority Gap is published by Doubleday. To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do so few men read books by women? | MA Sieghart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he byline at the top of this piece reads MA Sieghart, not Mary Ann. Why? Because I really want men to read it too. Female authors through the centuries, from the Brontë sisters to George Eliot to JK Rowling, have felt obliged to disguise their gender to persuade boys and men to read their books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How it Works

#TeamSeas will be one of the biggest, baddest, most-impactful cleanup projects of all time-and here's how we're doing it. Scroll on to see our cutting-edge river Interceptors, info on locally-organized cleanups, ghost-gear removal efforts and professional expeditions to areas where we can have the greatest conservation impact!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Help us remove 30 million pounds of trash by January 1st, 2022 - Join #TeamSeas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One dollar is one less pound of trash in the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender equality – We must do better, and we can!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feeding Bill Gates a Fake Burger (to save the world)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Every School Should Have Gender-Neutral Bathrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know that 60% of transgender people in the U.S. avoid public bathrooms for fear of being harassed? That is one reason why gender-neutral bathrooms should be made available in every school. …

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Why Every School Should Have Gender-Neutral Bathrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole. Since 1906, the global average surface temperature has increased by more than 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius)- even more in sensitive polar regions. And the impacts of rising temperatures aren't waiting for some far-flung future-the effects of global warming are appearing right now. The heat is melting glaciers and sea ice, shifting precipitation patterns, and setting animals on the move.

Many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, but scientists prefer to use "climate change" when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet's weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. All of these changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Scientists already have documented these impacts of climate change:

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. In Montana's Glacier National Park the number of glaciers has declined to fewer than 30 from more than 150 in 1910.

Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise. Global sea levels are rising 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year. The rise is occurring at a faster rate in recent years and is predicted to accelerate in the coming decades.

Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats. Vanishing ice has challenged species such as the Adélie penguin in Antarctica, where some populations on the western peninsula have collapsed by 90 percent or more.

As temperatures change, many species are on the move. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have migrated farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.

Some species-including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests-are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.

Other effects could take place later this century, if warming continues. These include:

Sea levels are expected to rise between 10 and 32 inches (26 and 82 centimeters) or higher by the end of the century.

Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Floods and droughts will become more common. Large parts of the U.S., for example, face a higher risk of decades-long "megadroughts" by 2100.

Less freshwater will be available, since glaciers store about three-quarters of the world's freshwater.

Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria (and the 2016 resurgence of the Zika virus).

Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or become more successful; others, such as polar bears, won't be able to adapt and could become extinct.

Read next: Is Global Warming Real?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While many Americans take free speech for granted, the tradition is far from universal. Many developed nations restrict speech that is deemed hurtful or offensive. And in the United States, there is increasing sentiment that some speech is not worth protecting. Is it time to reconsider the nation's free-speech orthodoxy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The new gender gap? 'In the life of young Peppa Pig, Daddy Pig is ridiculous'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The image of the silly, dumb man is too prevalent on our screens, writes Joyce Rubotham.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
​Discussions about the rights of transgender people in the workplace are starting to take place in earnest. Conversations on employees' gender identity, as well as how to protect and respect individuals who identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth, are starting to occur. Cities and states are even establishing laws to ensure that transgender and non-binary individuals feel safe using the bathroom.

In response to these changes, some companies are offering gender-neutral bathrooms in the workplace. At Baker McKenzie, a multinational law firm, there are single-use, gender-neutral bathrooms on each floor of its London office. "We're cognizant of the shifting demographics and how, in our current and future world of work, we will have non-binary colleagues," said EMEA D&I Associate Director Fatima Choudhury. "We're keen to strengthen our position as an employer where diverse talent can build a career and be successful, and by working with relevant stakeholders and communicating our progress and developments, we demonstrate the way in which we're building inclusive environments for all colleagues."

Companies that want to follow suit and install gender-neutral bathrooms may find that doing so ultimately benefits their employees and the brand reputations in many ways, say workplace experts.

Promoting Diversity and Inclusion

If a work location offers only gendered bathrooms, it might make employees feel uncomfortable and as if they aren't being recognized.

"You could be forcing people to make a choice that doesn't necessarily align with their gender identity in order to use the bathroom, which is a basic human need," said Cristina Jones, SHRM-SCP, chief people officer at New York City's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center. "This creates a work environment that is nonaffirming to anyone [who] identifies as transgender, genderqueer, gender neutral or non-binary and only affirms those [who] identify on the gender binary, particularly cisgender people."

An office that has gender-neutral bathrooms fosters an inclusive environment that shows that the company cares about diversity. It also demonstrates that a company doesn't just tolerate workers' differences, but affirms them, according to Jones.

Mildred Perez, director of people and culture at Lambda Legal in New York, said that having gender-neutral bathrooms "sends a clear message that the organization does not just talk about diversity and inclusion; it acts on it. It sends the message that the organization respects and values every person for who they are and what they contribute, not by what sex they were assigned at birth or their gender identity."

Communicating Organizational Values

Installing gender-neutral bathrooms also helps a workplace communicate its values, said Kevin Carrington, vice president, senior consultant and federal practice leader at Washington, D.C.'s Segal Consulting. He said that the majority of Millennial and Generation Z employees believe that gender-neutral bathrooms should be the norm, so if a company values its younger employees' opinions, it will install the bathrooms.

"An organization's leadership needs to define their values and the culture they want to create and find ways to communicate and reflect those decisions with how they treat employees and visitors," said Carrington. "Once the values are defined, gender-neutral bathrooms are one way to show how an organization lives those values daily."

Attracting and Retaining the Top Talent

Given the very tight job market, candidates and current employees have more options when choosing where they want to work. Gender-neutral bathrooms can be an attractive feature that convinces some candidates to apply and can make current employees feel more comfortable.

These bathrooms may also encourage employees to be themselves in the office. "People want to be able to bring their authentic selves to work, and companies and organizations are going to have a more engaged workplace if people feel that they belong and are valued in their workplace," Jones said.

Having gender-neutral bathrooms will also show that a company is accommodating to its employees' needs, said Nate Masterson, founder of Maple Holistics in Farmingdale, N.J. "This will make qualified employees more likely to want to work for your company over another, as they'll know that the company values employee needs and has an understanding environment. In an age where people place a tremendous amount of importance on office culture, being known as a people-friendly office is a big plus for potential employees."

Managing the Logistics

Though it could cost thousands of dollars to install new bathrooms, the expenditure may be justified if a company is able to make workers feel valued, appeal to and retain the best employees, and improve their workplace culture and values, said Carrington.

Logistically, many companies that have the space are providing both gendered and gender-neutral facilities so that every worker feels comfortable. Carrington said companies typically will have a gender-neutral bathroom with a single stall and a locking door, while the gendered ones will have multiple stalls.

"The challenge lies more in older buildings with limited space, or office suites with shared hallway bathrooms where the use policies are based on building management and not on a specific organization's value policies," he said. "The current best practice is moving toward allowing people to use the facilities that align with their gender identification, but this is still evolving in many states and is not the law in every state.

"According to Ballotpedia, as of June 2018, 18 states and Washington, D.C., had adopted laws prohibiting discrimination against transgender individuals in employment, housing and public accommodations. At least one state, New Mexico, joined the list in 2019. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, cities like Philadelphia, New York, West Hollywood and Austin require public restrooms to be marked as all-gender.

No matter how local laws evolve, companies can lead the way on inclusion and demonstrate their dedication to their employees through installing these bathrooms, said Perez.

"It is always better to listen to your staff and respect your employees for who they are and how they identify, and that goes from bathrooms to respecting their pronouns, their names, and their gender identity and expression," Perez said. "By listening to your staff and enabling affirmative and inclusive spaces and dialogues, the organization would head in the right direction and retain a diverse and talented workforce."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Benefits of Offering Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conversations on employees' gender identity, as well as how to protect and respect individuals who identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth, are taking place around the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data shows gun ownership in the US has grown over the last several years

Gun violence is a fixture in American life - but the issue is a highly political one, pitting gun control advocates against people who are fiercely protective of their right to bear arms.

We've looked into some of the numbers behind firearms in the US.

Mass shootings on the rise

There have been more than 560 mass shootings across the US so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. Their figures include shootings that happen in homes and in public places.

For each of the last three years there have been more than 600 mass shootings - almost two a day on average.

The deadliest such attack, in Las Vegas in 2017, killed more than 50 people and left 500 wounded. The vast majority of mass shootings, however, leave fewer than 10 people dead.

How do US gun deaths break down?

48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the US during 2021, according to the latest data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That's nearly an 8% increase from 2020, which was a record-breaking year for firearm deaths.

While mass shootings and gun murders (homicides) generally garner much media attention, more than half of the total in 2021 were suicides.

That year, more than 20,000 of the deaths were homicides, according to the CDC.

Data shows more than 50 people are killed each day by a firearm in the US.

That's a significantly larger proportion of homicides than is the case in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, and many other countries.

How many guns are there in the US?

While calculating the number of guns in private hands around the world is difficult, the latest figures from the Small Arms Survey - a Swiss-based research project - estimated that there were 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018.

The US ratio of 120.5 firearms per 100 residents, up from 88 per 100 in 2011, far surpasses that of other countries around the world.

More recent data out of the US suggests that gun ownership grew significantly over the last few years. A study, published by the Annals of Internal Medicine in February, found that 7.5 million US adults became new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021.

This, in turn, exposed 11 million people to firearms in their homes, including 5 million children. About half of new gun owners in that time period were women, while 40% were either black or Hispanic.

Who supports gun control?

A majority of Americans are in favour of gun control.

57% of Americans surveyed said they wanted stricter gun laws - although this fell last year - according to polling by Gallup.

32% said the laws should remain the same, while 10% of people surveyed said they should be "made less strict".

The issue is extremely divisive, falling largely along party lines.

"Democrats are nearly unanimous in their support for stricter gun laws," another Gallup study noted, with nearly 91% in favour of stricter gun laws.

Only 24% Republicans, on the other hand, agreed with the same statement, along with 45% of Independent voters.

Some states have taken steps to ban or strictly regulate ownership of assault weapons. Laws vary by state but California, for example, has banned ownership of assault weapons with limited exceptions.

Some controls are widely supported by people across the political divide - such as restrictions governing the sale of guns to people who are mentally ill or on "watch" lists.

Who opposes gun control?

Despite years of financial woes and internal strife, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

Over the last several election cycles, it, and other organisations, have consistently spent more on pro-gun rights messaging than their rivals in the gun control lobby.

A number of states have also gone as far as to largely eliminate restrictions on who can carry a gun. In June 2021, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a "permitless carry bill" that allows the state's residents to carry handguns without a licence or training.

Similarly, in April last year Georgia became the 25th in the nation to eliminate the need for a permit to conceal or openly carry a firearm. The law means any citizen of that state has the right to carry a firearm without a licence or a permit.

The law was backed by the NRA, and leaders within the organisation called the move "a monumental moment for the Second Amendment".

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many US mass shootings have there been in 2023?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

Gun violence is a daily scourge that threatens our most fundamental right: the right to life. More than 600 people die every day as a result of firearms violence, which is driven in part by easy access to firearms - whether legal or illegal.

Anyone can be affected by gun violence, but it often disproportionately impacts people of colour, men and boys in deprived communities, and other marginalized groups. Domestic violence involving firearms also puts women at heightened risk of death or life-changing injuries.

Sometimes, the mere presence of firearms can make people feel threatened and fearful for their lives. They may be too afraid to attend schools or health facilities. Community-wide gun violence may prevent services from fully functioning, which can harm access to education or healthcare.

The vast majority of gun violence occurs outside of armed conflict settings. A significant proportion - in some states more than half - of firearm deaths are caused by suicide and accidents.

Our human rights are not protected if our leaders fail to tackle and end the epidemic of gun violence and gun deaths.

Previous Next

What is gun violence?

Gun violence is violence committed with firearms, such as handguns, shotguns, or semi-automatic rifles. More than 600 people are estimated to die every day from gun violence with two-thirds of gun-related deaths, including suicides, occurring in just six countries (in descending order): Brazil, the USA, Venezuela, Mexico, India and Colombia.

Up to 71% of all homicides globally involve gun violence. The majority of victims and perpetrators are young men, but women are at particular risk of violence from an intimate partner possessing a firearm. Sexual violence can also be perpetrated at gunpoint.

Firearms cause devastating injuries that leave a lasting impact on mental and physical health. Some gunshot victims need intensive, lifelong care. Others may lose their ability to work. Many have little or no access to programmes that offer adequate long-term care and rehabilitation.

How many guns are there?

More than 1 billion firearms are in circulation globally. The vast majority - 85%- are in the hand of private individuals, 13% are in military arsenals and 2% are owned by law enforcement agencies.

Gun violence committed by private individuals is typically concentrated in low-income urban neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, including drug trafficking. Many of these areas are blighted by inadequate policing or policing which does not comply with international standards on human rights and law enforcement, and a lack of access to public services.

Therefore, easy access to and proliferation of firearms, combined with socio-economic factors, can have a harmful impact on the community's full range of human rights.

Gun violence and the right to health
Gun violence can rob people of their lives, health and right to healthcare.
People living in communities plagued by firearm violence may find it difficult or even dangerous to access health care facilities. This is especially true in areas where neighbourhoods are partitioned by armed criminal gangs or subject to curfews due to insecurity.

Gun violence can also deter local authorities and NGOs from setting up community health services, and contributes to poor staff retention. Survivors of domestic violence often do not have the essential psychological support or safe accommodation they need in neighbourhoods wracked by firearm violence.

The psychological toll from rampant gun violence is often heavy, particularly for victims, their family members and those who have witnessed shootings. Survivors may be left with debilitating and life-changing injuries which require long-term medical and social care.

Gun violence and the right to education

Mass shootings and other firearm violence can disrupt children's education and make students' journeys to and from school dangerous.

Endemic gun violence damages the learning environment by disrupting school attendance and rates of retention, and makes it harder to recruit and retain teaching staff.

This can, in turn, lead to poorer outcomes for students in terms of employment and income. It can also perpetuate cycles of deprivation, crime and violence.

Gun violence exacerbates the impact of systemic discrimination.
In 2020, 60.9% of the 19,995 people killed by gun homicide in the US were African Americans, despite African Americans making up just 13% of the US population.

Black men and boys aged 15-34 are more than 10 times more likely to die from firearm homicide than white men and boys of the same age group.

Failure to address systemic discrimination; failure to keep firearms out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them; and a failure to invest in gun violence prevention programmes all contribute to this crisis.
Women facing domestic violence and children are also disproportionately affected by gun violence.
In 2020, the ratio of women in the Caribbean killed in gun violence was more than three times the global average. In the USA, guns are now the leading cause of death for children. Furthermore, between 2% and 7% of all injuries treated at US paediatric trauma centres are gun-related.

Gun Violence Figures Worldwide

How can governments stop gun violence?

Effectively implemented gun regulation and evidence-based violence prevention projects can stop the carnage.

As a first step, states should recognize firearm violence as a threat to people's human rights, in particular their rights to life, to physical integrity and security of person, and to health.

Gun regulation and gun licences

States can set up some basic systems to regulate how private individuals can own and use firearms and ammunition to prevent them from using firearms to abuse human rights.

International standards recommend prohibiting any possession of firearms without a licence; that states should register all firearms; and that unlicensed possession should be treated as a criminal offence.

A firearms licence should be subject to certain criteria. For example, the applicant should undergo a comprehensive background check to identify any risks, such as:

a criminal record - especially for violent behaviour in the home or community; history of gender-based, sexual or domestic violence;

history of problematic use of drugs/alcohol, emotional issues, mental health conditions and

any other circumstances which heighten the risks of the harm to self or others using firearms.

Gun licences should be time-limited and training on how to use the weapon should be mandatory. The number and type of weapons that an individual can possess should also be strictly limited in line with the principles of necessity and credible justification.

Some firearms and ammunition represent an unacceptable level of risk to public safety and should be banned for personal use. These should include, at a minimum, fully automatic firearms, semi-automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic submachine guns.

Does gun reform work?

Yes, gun reform works. Almost all countries regulate gun acquisition, possession and use in some form. Most do this by licensing users and registering firearms.

Gun reform works in parts of the world where there are strict controls on access to firearms and well-enforced firearms regulations. This is the case for much of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia. For example, in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the rate of firearm violence is extremely low.

What does Amnesty do about gun violence?

Amnesty International is campaigning to strengthen regulations on firearm sale, transfer, use and possession. We support the creation of evidence-based violence reduction programmes in communities with persistently high levels of firearms violence.

You can stand up and remind our leaders of their obligation to keep us safe. You can play a crucial role in campaigning and protesting against gun violence and making it clear to governments that they must tackle this through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.
You have the power to tell governments that by using gun laws, we can all live safely and without fear - which is our right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have the right to be safe from gun violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cost of Immigration Enforcement and Border Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the federal government has spent an estimated $324 billion on the agencies that carry out immigration enforcement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court declared more than a half-century ago that public school students have First Amendment rights. Now the justices are considering what that means in the age of social media.

In 2017, Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old student at a small public high school in Pennsylvania, tried out for her school's varsity cheerleading squad. The weekend after her tryout, she learned she did not make the team and would be placed on the junior varsity squad for the second year in a row. This news came around the same time that she failed to secure her preferred spot on the school's softball team and final exams were just around the corner. Levy was upset, and in typical teenager style, she turned to social media to express her frustrations. She posted a photo on her personal Snapchat account gesturing with her middle finger and a caption that read "f- school f- softball f- cheer f- everything".

The post was shared only with her followers, and, like all Snapchat content, it disappeared after 24 hours. In that time, however, a fellow student took a screenshot and shared it with the cheerleading coach. Despite the fact that it was uploaded off-campus and did not target, threaten, or harass anyone, the coach suspended her from the team for the rest of the year on the grounds that Levy had violated the cheerleading program's code of conduct, which required that students "have respect for [their] school, coaches, teachers, other cheerleaders and teams" and not post any "negative information" about the program. Levy and her parents protested, but the principal and school board upheld the coach's decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Levy's favor last year, holding that schools may not regulate off-campus speech on social media, at least where the speech does not threaten violence to others.

Now Levy and her teenage use of F-bombs on Snapchat are at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case that could reshape the status of student speech. Oral arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., are set to take place on April 28; ultimately, the justices will determine whether and how schools can regulate off-campus student speech. The Brennan Center joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment in urging the Court to uphold the Third Circuit's decision and preserve the scope of student free speech.

The outcome in this case will turn on the Supreme Court's application of its 1969 landmark case, Tinker v. Des Moines, to off-campus speech. The Court held that neither students nor teachers "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," cementing students' First Amendment rights in schools. The decision established that public schools could not censor free speech unless it "materially and substantially" interfered with the operations of a school.

As a result, students have been able to participate in the national discourse on key issues, from protesting against police brutality to organizing around gun violence in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Social media has become a particularly vital platform for students to engage in a wide variety of self-expression, political speech, and activism. Especially amid lockdowns and remote learning because of the coronavirus pandemic, social media has proven to be a critical tool for students to retain connections with their school communities.

In Levy's case, the Third Circuit held that Tinker's exception permitting schools to regulate disruptive speech does not apply to off-campus speech like social media. The appeals court added that even if Tinker did apply, the school would not have been justified in punishing Levy because her post "is not close to the line of student speech that schools may regulate."

If schools were given wide latitude to penalize students for their off-campus speech, there would be little incentive not to monitor their students' online activity. Monitoring students' social media raises a host of concerns, however, including the chilling effect, intrusion into privacy, and disparate impact on minority, underserved, or vulnerable students. Age, gender, and racial and cultural differences can also inform how social media posts are interpreted, and young people's online activity is often extremely context dependent.

In 2014, for example, an Alabama school district hired a former FBI agent to scour the social media accounts of nearly 600 students as part of a school safety initiative. The program resulted in the expulsion of 14 students, 12 of whom were Black - a troubling figure in a school district that was only 40 percent Black. The Southern Poverty Law Center investigated the matter and found that the district's policies were pushing out students that did not pose a threat to others. One student came under scrutiny for "holding too much money" in a photo, and another was suspended for wearing a sweatshirt honoring her late father because it was perceived as a sign of gang membership by school officials.

Endorsing the Pennsylvania school's actions - punishing a student for issuing an obscenity while off campus - would give school officials nearly limitless discretion to police students' private communications and make students susceptible to discriminatory enforcement. If schools are given free rein to censor off-campus speech perceived as disruptive or even disrespectful, it doesn't take much to imagine what might happen to students who take to social media to speak out about school policies, racism, or any other legitimate complaints connected to their learning experiences - or how students will choose instead to censor themselves. Students' right to free expression is an essential part of their education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Free Speech Rights at the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court declared more than a half-century ago that public school students have First Amendment rights. Now the justices are considering what that means in the age of social media. In 2017, Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old student at a small public high school in Pennsylvania, tried out for her school's varsity cheerleading squad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The White alone non-Hispanic population was the most prevalent racial or ethnic group for all states except California (Hispanic or Latino), Hawaii (Asian alone non-Hispanic), New Mexico (Hispanic or Latino), and the District of Columbia, a state equivalent (Black or African American alone non-Hispanic).

In 2020, the Hispanic or Latino population became the largest racial or ethnic group in California, comprising 39.4% of the total population, up from 37.6% in 2010. This differs from 2010, when the largest racial or ethnic group in California was the White alone non-Hispanic population, whose share declined from 40.1% in 2010 to 34.7% in 2020.

In 2020, we also saw shifts in the second-most prevalent group for some states.

In West Virginia, the Multiracial non-Hispanic population (4.0%) became the second-most prevalent group, surpassing the Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population (3.6%). In Wisconsin, the Hispanic or Latino population (7.6%) became the second-most prevalent group, surpassing the Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population (6.2%).

In Texas, the first- and second-most prevalent group rankings did not change between 2010 and 2020, but the difference in size between the White alone non-Hispanic population (39.7%) and the Hispanic or Latino population (39.3%) shrank to 0.4 percentage points.

For the District of Columbia, the difference in the size of the Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population (40.9%) and the White alone non-Hispanic population (38.0%) narrowed dramatically in 2020 with only a 2.9 percentage point difference.

In contrast, the District of Columbia's Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population was 50.0% and the White alone non-Hispanic population was 34.8% in 2010, a difference of 15.2 percentage points.

Finally, 2020 Census results showed that Hawaii (21.8%) was the state with the highest diffusion score, followed by Alaska (17.9%), Oklahoma (17.8%) and Nevada (16.0%).

You can explore 2020 Census diversity measures at the state and county level and compare them to 2010 patterns using the "Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the United States: 2010 Census and 2020 Census" data visualization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Chance That Two People Chosen at Random Are of Different Race or Ethnicity Groups Has Increased Since 2010

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2020 Census results released today allow us to measure the nation's racial and ethnic diversity and how it varies at different geographic levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
animal rights, moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure. Historically, different views of the scope of animal rights have reflected philosophical and legal developments, scientific conceptions of animal and human nature, and religious and ethical conceptions of the proper relationship between animals and human beings. Since the beginning of the modern animal rights movement, which was initiated by philosophers in the 1970s, animal rights has been a popular topic of discussion within the academic study of applied ethics, or the application of normative ethical theories to practical problems.

Philosophical background

The proper treatment of animals is a very old question in the West. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers debated the place of animals in human morality. The Pythagoreans (6th-4th century bce) and the Neoplatonists (3rd-6th century ce) urged respect for animals' interests, primarily because they believed in the transmigration of souls between human and animal bodies. In his biological writings, Aristotle (384-322 bce) repeatedly suggested that animals lived for their own sake, but his claim in the Politics that nature made all animals for the sake of humans was unfortunately destined to become his most influential statement on the subject.

Aristotle, and later the Stoics, believed the world was populated by an infinity of beings arranged hierarchically according to their complexity and perfection, from the barely living to the merely sentient, the rational, and the wholly spiritual. In this Great Chain of Being, as it came to be known, all forms of life were represented as existing for the sake of those forms higher in the chain. Among corporeal beings, humans, by dint of their rationality, occupied the highest position. The Great Chain of Being became one of the most persistent and powerful, if utterly erroneous, ways of conceiving the universe, dominating scientific, philosophical, and religious thinking until the middle of the 19th century.

The Stoics, insisting on the irrationality of all nonhuman animals, regarded them as slaves and accordingly treated them as contemptible and beneath notice. Aggressively advocated by St. Augustine (354-430), these Stoic ideas became embedded in Christian theology. They were absorbed wholesale into Roman law-as reflected in the treatises and codifications of Gaius (fl. 130-180) and Justinian (483-565)-taken up by the legal glossators of Europe in the 11th century, and eventually pressed into English (and, much later, American) common law. Meanwhile, arguments that urged respect for the interests of animals nearly disappeared, and animal welfare remained a relative backwater of philosophical inquiry and legal regulation until the final decades of the 20th century.

Animals and the law

In the 3rd or 4th century ce, the Roman jurist Hermogenianus wrote, "Hominum causa omne jus constitum" ("All law was established for men's sake"). Repeating the phrase, P.A. Fitzgerald's 1966 treatise Salmond on Jurisprudence declared, "The law is made for men and allows no fellowship or bonds of obligation between them and the lower animals." The most important consequence of this view is that animals have long been categorized as "legal things," not as "legal persons." Whereas legal persons have rights of their own, legal things do not. They exist in the law solely as the objects of the rights of legal persons-e.g., as things over which legal persons may exercise property rights. This status, however, often affords animals the indirect protection of laws intended to preserve social morality or the rights of animal owners, such as criminal anticruelty statutes or civil statutes that permit owners to obtain compensation for damages inflicted on their animals. Indeed, this sort of law presently defines the field of "animal law," which is much broader than animal rights because it encompasses all law that addresses the interests of nonhuman animals-or, more commonly, the interests of the people who own them.

A legal thing can become a legal person; this happened whenever human slaves were freed. The former legal thing then possesses his own legal rights and remedies. Parallels have frequently been drawn between the legal status of animals and that of human slaves. "The truly striking fact about slavery," the American historian David Brion Davis has written, is the

antiquity and almost universal acceptance of the concept of the slave as a human being who is legally owned, used, sold, or otherwise disposed of as if he or she were a domestic animal. This parallel persisted in the similarity of naming slaves, branding them, and even pricing them according to their equivalent in cows, camels, pigs, and chickens.

The American jurist Roscoe Pound wrote that in ancient Rome a slave "was a thing, and as such, like animals could be the object of rights of property," and the British historian of Roman law Barry Nicholas has pointed out that in Rome "the slave was a thing...he himself had no rights: he was merely an object of rights, like an animal."

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, humanitarian reformers in Britain and the United States campaigned on behalf of the weak and defenseless, protesting against child labour, debtor's prisons, abusive punishment in public schools, and, inevitably, the cruel treatment of animals. In 1800 the most renowned abolitionist of the period, William Wilberforce, supported a bill to abolish bull- and bearbaiting, which was defeated in the House of Commons. In 1809 Baron Erskine, former lord chancellor of England, who had long been troubled by cruelty to animals, introduced a bill to prohibit cruelty to all domestic animals. Erskine declared that the bill was intended to "consecrate, perhaps, in all nations, and in all ages, that just and eternal principle which binds the whole living world in one harmonious chain, under the dominion of enlightened man, the lord and governor of all." Although the bill passed the House of Lords, it failed in the House of Commons. Then, in 1821, a bill "to prevent cruel and improper treatment of Cattle" was introduced in the House of Commons, sponsored by Wilberforce and Thomas Fowell Buxton and championed by Irish member of Parliament Richard Martin. The version enacted in 1822, known as Martin's Act, made it a crime to treat a handful of domesticated animals-cattle, oxen, horses, and sheep-cruelly or to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them. However, it did not protect the general welfare of even these animals, much less give them legal rights, and the worst punishment available for any breach was a modest fine. Similar statutes were enacted in all the states of the United States, where there now exists a patchwork of anticruelty and animal-welfare laws. Most states today make at least some abuses of animals a felony. Laws such as the federal Animal Welfare Act (1966), for example, regulate what humans may do to animals in agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, and other areas. But neither Martin's Act nor many subsequent animal-protection statutes altered the traditional legal status of animals as legal things.

This situation changed in 2008, when the Spanish national parliament adopted resolutions urging the government to grant orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas some statutory rights previously afforded only to humans. The resolutions also called for banning the use of apes in performances, harmful research, and trading as well as in other practices that involve profiting from the animals. Although zoos would still be allowed to hold apes, they would be required to provide them with "optimal" living conditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal rights | Definition, Issues, & History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal rights, moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure. Historically, different views of the scope of animal rights have

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wildfire is an unplanned fire that burns in a natural area such as a forest, grassland, or prairie. Wildfires are often caused by human activity or a natural phenomenon such as lightning, and they can happen at any time or anywhere. In 50% of wildfires recorded, it is not known how they started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wildfire is a general term which includes forest fires, grassland fires, bushfires, brush fires and any other vegetation fire in countryside areas.

Wildfires occur in every continent except Antarctica. They can occur naturally and spontaneously, but many are caused by humans, accidentally or deliberately. Fossil records and human history show that wildfires do occur at intervals. The Great Oxygenation Event and the spread of land plants made Earth a planet of fire.

Wildfires can cause extensive damage to property and human life, but they also have some beneficial effects on wilderness areas. Some plant species depend on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction, although large wildfires may also have negative ecological effects.

Strategies of wildfire prevention, detection, and suppression have varied over the years. One of the more controversial methods is controlled burn: People permit or light small fires to burn away some of the fuel for a potential wildfire. While some wildfires burn in remote forested regions, they can cause extensive destruction of homes and other property in the zone between developed areas and undeveloped wilderness.

Plant adaptation

Plants in wildfire-prone ecosystems often have adaptations to their local conditions. Such adaptations include physical protection against heat, increased growth after a fire event, and flammable materials that encourage fire and eliminate competition. For example, plants of the genus Eucalyptus contain flammable oils that encourage fire and hard sclerophyll leaves that resist heat and drought. This makes them dominant over less fire-tolerant species. Dense bark, shedding lower branches, and high water content in external structures may also protect trees from rising temperatures. Fire-resistant seeds and reserve shoots that sprout after a fire encourage species preservation, as in 'pioneer' species that specialize in restarting ecological succession after a fire.

Smoke, charred wood, and heat can stimulate the germination of seeds. Smoke from burning plants promotes contains orange butenolide, which induces germination of seeds.

Grasslands in Western Sabah, Malaysian pine forests, and Indonesian Casuarina forests are believed to have resulted from previous periods of fire. The deadwood litter of Chamise (Californian greasewood shrub) is low in water content and flammable, and the shrub quickly sprouts after a fire. relies on periodic fires to reduce competition, release seeds from their cones, and clear the soil and canopy for new growth. Some have adapted to, and rely on, low-intensity surface fires for survival and growth. The optimum fire frequency for Caribbean pine in Bahamian pineyards is every 3 to 10 years. Too frequent fires favour herbaceous plants, and infrequent fires favour other tree species.

Related pages

Images for kids

In Spanish: Incendio forestal para niños

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A wildfire is a fire that burns out of control in a natural area, like a forest, grassland, or prairie. Wildfires can start from natural causes, such as lightning, but they are usually caused by humans, such as campers or hikers who did not put out their campfire properly. Wildfires spread quickly, burning brush, trees, and homes in its path. They can also affect natural resources (such as soil, animals, forests), destroy homes, and put people's lives in danger.

Words to know!

Am I at Risk?

What Can I Do?

Before

During

After

Learn More

Did you know?

The three elements needed to create and keep a fire burning are heat, fuel, and oxygen, also known as the fire triangle.

Incident Meteorologists (IMETs) are a group of around 70 specially-trained weather experts with the National Weather Service. They work closely with wildfire responders at wildfire sites to monitor, analyze, and report fire and weather conditions. Their forecasts help firefighters plan operations when dealing with the unpredictable nature of fire. This helps keep emergency responders safe.

Learn more with:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Words to Know Am I at Risk? What Can I do? Learn More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are 7 wildfire facts that will help you better understand the causes, prevention and what you can to help forests to recover from forest fires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to DoSomething.org, a global movement of millions of young people making positive change, online and off! The 11 facts you want are below, and the sources for the facts are at the very bottom of the page. After you learn something, Do Something! Find out how to take action here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why 99% of ocean plastic pollution is "missing"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Unexpected Effects of Plastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The problem of plastics

Plastic is a polymeric material-that is, a material whose molecules are very large, often resembling long chains made up of a seemingly endless series of interconnected links. Natural polymers such as rubber and silk exist in abundance, but nature's "plastics" have not been implicated in environmental pollution, because they do not persist in the environment. Today, however, the average consumer comes into daily contact with all kinds of plastic materials that have been developed specifically to defeat natural decay processes-materials derived mainly from petroleum that can be molded, cast, spun, or applied as a coating. Since synthetic plastics are largely nonbiodegradable, they tend to persist in natural environments. Moreover, many lightweight single-use plastic products and packaging materials, which account for approximately 50 percent of all plastics produced, are not deposited in containers for subsequent removal to landfills, recycling centres, or incinerators. Instead, they are improperly disposed of at or near the location where they end their usefulness to the consumer. Dropped on the ground, thrown out of a car window, heaped onto an already full trash bin, or inadvertently carried off by a gust of wind, they immediately begin to pollute the environment. Indeed, landscapes littered by plastic packaging have become common in many parts of the world. (Illegal dumping of plastic and overflowing of containment structures also play a role.) Studies from around the world have not shown any particular country or demographic group to be most responsible, though population centres generate the most litter. The causes and effects of plastic pollution are truly worldwide.

According to the trade association PlasticsEurope, worldwide plastic production grew from some 1.5 million metric tons (about 1.7 million short tons) per year in 1950 to an estimated 275 million metric tons (about 303 million short tons) by 2010 and 359 million metric tons (nearly 396 million short tons) by 2018; between 4.8 million and 12.7 million metric tons (5.3 million and 14 million short tons) are discarded into the oceans annually by countries with ocean coastlines.

Compared with materials in common use in the first half of the 20th century, such as glass, paper, iron, and aluminum, plastics have a low recovery rate. That is, they are relatively inefficient to reuse as recycled scrap in the manufacturing process, because of significant processing difficulties such as a low melting point, which prevents contaminants from being driven off during heating and reprocessing. Most recycled plastics are subsidized below the cost of raw materials by various deposit schemes, or their recycling is simply mandated by government regulations. Recycling rates vary dramatically from country to country, and only northern European countries obtain rates greater than 50 percent. In any case, recycling does not really address plastic pollution, since recycled plastic is "properly" disposed of, whereas plastic pollution comes from improper disposal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution | Definition, Sources, Effects, Solutions, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution, harmful accumulation of synthetic plastic products in the environment. Plastics are persistent large-scale pollutants, and plastic debris (such as bottles, straws, containers, and plastic wrap) and particulates have been found in many environmental niches, from Mount Everest to the bottom of the sea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Garbage, including plastic waste, is seen at the beach of Costa del Este, in Panama City, on April ... [+]
AFP via Getty Images

Just about anywhere you travel in the world, you will encounter plastic pollution. Even the beaches of remote tropical islands are littered with plastic waste. A recent study published in the journal Nature characterized 414 million pieces of plastic - 238 metric tons - on one remote island chain in the Indian Ocean.

The study's lead author, Jennifer Lavers from the University of Tasmania's Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, said this is an indicator of the staggering amount of plastic debris floating in the oceans:

"Islands such as these are like canaries in a coal mine and it's increasingly urgent that we act on the warnings they are giving us. Plastic pollution is now ubiquitous in our oceans, and remote islands are an ideal place to get an objective view of the volume of plastic debris now circling the globe."

Many are familiar with the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is a collection of several large areas of marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean. The total area of this garbage patch - consisting largely of plastic debris - covers an area that is estimated to be twice the size of Texas. The patch consists of more than 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic with an estimated weight of 80,000 metric tons, and it poses a serious threat to marine life such as whales, sea turtles, fish, and birds.

Remote plastic dumps may be out of sight for most people, but they nevertheless impact the health of humans everywhere. Plastics break down in the environment, and their degradation products, such as bisphenol A (BPA), are known to interfere with human hormonal function. Researchers are even finding microplastics in human organs.

But why should plastic pollution be such a serious environmental threat? Don't we recycle our plastics?

It is true that many of us place our plastics in recycle bins. We assume that it gets sorted and reused. But much of that "recycled plastic" nevertheless ends up in landfills.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that used plastics just don't have much value. It is cheaper in most cases to source new plastics than to recycle them. But there are two things that can change that dynamic: Global legislation to address plastic pollution, and new technologies aimed at recycling and repurposing used plastics.

A growing number of community and conservation organizations have urged President Joe Biden to take executive action to address the plastic pollution crisis. A Los Angeles Times editorial also urged President Biden to take the lead on pushing for a global treaty within the Group of Seven (G7) countries.

Support is growing for a global treaty on plastic pollution, such as the Paris Climate Agreement that is aimed at curbing carbon emissions. More than two-thirds of UN member states, and the EU, have stated that they are open to an agreement on plastic pollution.

Climate treaties have driven innovation in the area of reducing carbon emissions. Plastic pollution treaties could do the same for the manufacture, use, and reuse of plastics.

In the next article, I will discuss some of the technical challenges of dealing with used plastics, as well as one Canadian company that has taken an innovative approach to the problem.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just about anywhere you travel in the world, you will encounter plastic pollution. Even the beaches of remote tropical islands are littered with plastic waste. A recent study published in the journal Nature characterized 414 million pieces of plastic - 238 metric tons - on one remote island chain in the Indian Ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With so much seafood now containing plastic, the question is no longer are we eating plastic, but how bad is it for our health? In seawater, plastic absorbs chemicals like PCBs and DDTs which have been linked to endocrine disruption and even some cancers, becoming more powerful as they work their way up the food chain. Microplastics have now been found in human blood and disturbingly known to pass from mothers to their unborn children through the placentae.

The beach is where we go to connect with nature. It's simply not the same if it's covered in plastic. And with coastal tourism worth £5.5 billion to the UK economy, many of us count on it being clean for our livelihoods.

Even if you don't eat fish or go to the beach, everybody breathes. And all that essential oxygen? Marine plants produce a massive 70% of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immerse yourself in plastic trash and its shocking impact on our blue planet to better understand the big issues at play.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These policies can perpetuate discrimination against female students, as well as LGBT students.

Alfaguarilla / Shutterstock

Maggie Sunseri was a middle-school student in Versailles, Kentucky, when she first noticed a major difference in the way her school's dress code treated males and females. Girls were disciplined disproportionately, she says, a trend she's seen continue over the years. At first Sunseri simply found this disparity unfair, but upon realizing administrators' troubling rationale behind the dress code-that certain articles of girls' attire should be prohibited because they "distract" boys-she decided to take action.

"I've never seen a boy called out for his attire even though they also break the rules," says Sunseri, who last summer produced Shame: A Documentary on School Dress Code, a film featuring interviews with dozens of her classmates and her school principal, that explores the negative impact biased rules can have on girls' confidence and sense of self. The documentary now has tens of thousands of YouTube views, while a post about the dress-code policy at her high school-Woodford County High-has been circulated more than 45,000 times on the Internet.

Although dress codes have long been a subject of contention, the growth of platforms like Facebook and Instagram, along with a resurgence of student activism, has prompted a major uptick in protests against attire rules, including popular campaigns similar to the one championed by Sunseri. Conflict over these policies has also spawned hundreds of Change.org petitions and numerous school walkouts. Many of these protests have criticized the dress codes as sexist in that they unfairly target girls by body-shaming and blaming them for promoting sexual harassment. Documented cases show female students being chastised by school officials, sent home, or barred from attending events like prom.

Meanwhile, gender non-conforming and transgender students have also clashed with such policies on the grounds that they rigidly dictate how kids express their identities. Transgender students have been sent home for wearing clothing different than what's expected of their legal sex, while others have been excluded from yearbooks. Male students, using traditionally female accessories that fell within the bounds of standard dress code rules, and vice versa, have been nonetheless disciplined for their fashion choices. These cases are prompting their own backlash.

Dress codes-given the power they entrust school authorities to regulate student identity-can, according to students, ultimately establish discriminatory standards as the norm. The prevalence and convergence of today's protests suggest that schools not only need to update their policies-they also have to recognize and address the latent biases that go into creating them.

* * *

At Woodford County High, the dress code bans skirts and shorts that fall higher than the knee and shirts that extend below the collarbone. Recently, a photo of a female student at the school who was sent home after wearing a seemingly appropriate outfit that nonetheless showed collarbone-went viral on Reddit and Twitter.

The restrictions and severity of dress codes vary widely across states, 22 of which have some form of law granting local districts the power to establish these rules, according to the Education Commission of the States. In the U.S., over half of public schools have a dress code, which frequently outline gender-specific policies. Some administrators see these distinctions as necessary because of the different ways in which girls and boys dress. In many cases, however, female-specific policies account for a disproportionate number of the attire rules included in school handbooks. Certain parts of ​Arkansas's statewide dress code, for example, exclusively applies to females.* Passed in 2011, the law "requires districts to prohibit the wearing of clothing that exposes underwear, buttocks, or the breast of a female student." (The provision prohibiting exposure of the "underwear and buttocks" applies to all students.)

Depending on administrators and school boards, some places are more relaxed, while others take a hard line. Policies also tend to fluctuate, according to the University of Maryland American-studies professor and fashion historian Jo Paoletti, who described dress-code adaptations as very "reactionary" to whatever happens to be popular at the time-whether it's white go-go boots or yoga pants. Jere Hochman, the superintendent of New York's Bedford Central School District echoes Paoletti in explaining that officials revisit his district's policy, which has been in place "for years and years and years," "on an informal basis." "It's likely an annual conversation, he notes, "based on the times and what's changed and fads."

While research on dress codes remains inconclusive regarding the correlation between their implementation with students' academic outcomes, many educators agree that they can serve an important purpose: helping insure a safe and comfortable learning environment, banning T-shirts with offensive racial epithets, for example. When students break the rules by wearing something deemed inappropriate, administrators must, of course, enforce school policies.

The process of defining what's considered "offensive" and "inappropriate," however, can get quite murky. Schools may promote prejudiced policies, even if those biases are unintentional. For students who attend schools with particularly harsh rules like that at Woodford, one of the key concerns is the implication that women should be hypercognizant about their physical identity and how the world responds to it. "The dress code makes girls feel self-conscious, ashamed, and uncomfortable in their own bodies," says Sunseri.

Yet Sunseri emphasizes that this isn't where she and other students take the most issue. "It's not really the formal dress code by itself that is so discriminatory, it's the message behind the dress code," she says, "My principal constantly says that the main reason for [it] is to create a 'distraction-free learning zone' for our male counterparts." Woodford County is one of many districts across the country to justify female-specific rules with that logic, and effectively, to place the onus on girls to prevent inappropriate reactions from their male classmates. (Woodford County High has not responded to multiple requests for comment.)

"To me, that's not a girl's problem, that's a guy's problem," says Anna Huffman, who recently graduated from Western Alamance High School in Elon, North Carolina, and helped organize a protest involving hundreds of participants. Further north, a group of high-school girls from South Orange, New Jersey, similarly launched a campaign last fall, #IAmMoreThanADistraction, which exploded into a trending topic on Twitter and gleaned thousands of responses from girls sharing their own experiences.

Educators and sociologists, too, have argued that dress codes grounded in such logic amplify a broader societal expectation: that women are the ones who need to protect themselves from unwanted attention and that those wearing what could be considered sexy clothing are "asking for" a response. "Often they report hearing phrases like, 'boys will be boys,' from teachers," says Laura Bates, a co-founder of The Everyday Sexism Project. "There's a real culture being built up through some of these dress codes where girls are receiving very clear messages that male behavior, male entitlement to your body in public space is socially acceptable, but you will be punished."

"These are not girls who are battling for the right to come to school in their bikinis-it's a principle," she says.

There's also the disruption and humiliation that enforcing the attire rules can pose during school. Frequently, students are openly called out in the middle of class, told to leave and change, and sometimes, to go home and find a more appropriate outfit. In some instances, girls must wear brightly colored shirts that can exacerbate the embarrassment, emblazoned with words like, "Dress Code Violator." Some students contend this is a bigger detractor from learning than the allegedly disruptive outfit was in the first place. "That's crazy that they're caring more about two more inches of a girl's thigh being shown than them being in class," says Huffman. These interruptions can also be detrimental to peers given the time taken out from learning in order for teachers to address the issue, as Barbara Cruz, author of School Dress Codes: A Pro/Con Issue, points out.

Dress-code battles can also take place at events outside of the classroom, such as prom. At Cierra Gregersen's homecoming dance at Bingham High School in South Jordan, Utah, administrators asked female students to sit against the wall, touch their toes, and lift their arms to determine whether their outfits were appropriate. "Girls were outside the dance crying hysterically," says Gregersen, commenting on the public nature of the inspections and the lack of clarity around the policy. "We should not have to be treated like sexual objects because that was what it felt like." The incident prompted Gregersen to create a popular Change.org petition and stage a walkout with more than 100 classmates, but she says she never heard back from administration. (Bingham High School has not responded to multiple requests for comment.)

* * *

Every year, Strawberry Crest High School in Dover, Florida, holds a Spirit Week right around Halloween, during which students wear outfits in accordance with each day's theme. One of the themes last year was Throwback Thursday, enabling students to dress up in ways reminiscent of a previous decade. Peter Finucane-Terlop, a junior at the time who identifies as gay, decided to come to school in drag as a 1950s housewife.

Wearing a knee-length, baby-blue strapless dress, a button-up on top, a wig, and some make-up, Finucane-Terlop's outfit, he says, wasn't only accepted by his peers-it also complied with all the school's dress-code rules: His shoulders and chest were covered, and his dress was an appropriate length.

But sometimes the ways that schools regulate attire have little to do with explicit policies. According to Finucane-Terlop, a school official commented on his outfit in the middle of the courtyard during lunch that day. Finucane-Terlop recalls him saying, "Why are you dressed like that?" and "You shouldn't do that. You're a boy-dress like it. What if little kids saw you?"

Finucane-Terlop says he mentioned the incident to his school counselor right after it took place but didn't end up getting a response from administrators. April Langston, Finucane-Terlop's counselor, and David Brown, his principal at Strawberry Crest, however, do not recall talking about or hearing of such an incident.

Beyond this specific case, Emily Greytak, the research director at GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), says the organization has noticed that incidents like the one Finucane-Terlop described are becoming more frequent, when LGBT students are discriminated against either verbally, or via disciplinary action, for clothing choices that don't fall in line with either a dress code or dress expectations that starkly demarcate different rules based on gender. According to a recent GLSEN study, 19 percent of LGBT students were prevented from wearing clothes that were thought to be from another gender and that number was even higher for transgender students, nearly 32 percent of whom have been prevented from wearing clothes that differed from those designated for their legal sex.

"This isn't occasional; this isn't just some students. This is something that happens quite regularly," Greytak says. The discipline is sometimes informed by teachers' personal biases while in other cases, school policies discriminate against transgender or gender non-conforming students expressions of their gender identity.

As Emery Vela, a sophomore, demonstrates, eventually some students manage to navigate and help reform the policies. Vela, a transgender student who attends a charter school in Denver, Colorado, dealt with this issue when looking for footwear to match his uniform in middle school, which had different requirements for boys and girls and suspended students if they broke the rule. Despite some initial pushback, the school adjusted the policy after he spoke with administrators.

"While they're trying to achieve this goal of having a learning environment that supports learning, it's really disadvantaging transgender and gender non-conforming students when they have to wear something that doesn't match their identity," Vela says.

* * *

Dress codes trace back to the 1920s and '30s, and conflicts over the rules have been around ever since, says Paoletti, the fashion historian: "Dress has been an issue in public schools as long as teenagers have been interested in fashion." Several cases, including Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969, in which students alleged that wearing black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam War constituted free speech, have even gone all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The subjectivity inherent to many of these judgment calls-like the dress-code cases contending that boys with long hair would be society's downfall-is often what ignites conflict. As with the kinds of protests staged by Sunseri and Huffman, many of the larger movements to resist school attire regulations today echo a broader momentum for women's rights, pushing back against existing attitudes and practices. "We've seen a real resurgence in the popularity of feminism and feminist activism, particularly among young people and particularly in an international sense, facilitated by social media," says Bates, who sees dress code protests as one key everyday impact of such trends. "I think that one of the striking elements of this new wave of activism is a sense of our entitlement and our courage to tackle the forms of sexism that are very subtle, that previously it was very difficult to stand up to, because you would be accused of overreacting, of making a fuss out of nothing."

Similarly, Greytak says these conflicts are also an indicator that LGBT students are feeling safer in their school environments and able to criticize them: "It's very possible that we are hearing more and seeing more about these cases because before less students would even feel comfortable being and expressing themselves."

As this issue has gained exposure and traction, students have also derived inspiration from the actions of their peers, including Sunseri, who's now in the process of negotiating changes to the dress code with her school administration, "If high-schoolers across the country were standing up for what they believed was right, why shouldn't I?"

* * *

According to students, the best solutions for remedying these issues entail more inclusive policymaking and raising awareness about the subject. And students and administrators tend to agree that schools should involve students early on in the rule-creation process to prevent conflicts from popping up. By developing a system like this, they have a stake in the decision and are significantly more likely to both adhere and respect the final verdict.

This also helps reduce some of the subjectivity that shapes the rules and acknowledges how touchy the topic can be for all stakeholders. "It's sensitive for the students, it's sensitive for the parents, it's sensitive for the teachers," says Matt Montgomery, the superintendent of Revere Local Schools in Richfield, Ohio. "You're in a tough position when you're a principal evaluating the fashion sense of a 15- or 16-year-old female. Principals are doing things like engaging female counselors and other staff members to make sure that everything is okay."

Similarly, when conflicts do arise, maintaining an open dialogue is critical. "I always tell administrators to not be on the defensive, to hear students out, to hear families out, and then to have a well-reasoned explanation and if at all possible, to look at some of the research and be able to cite some of that," says Cruz, the author. "Most of the time, school administrators are basing their decisions more on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical research. They need to be able to explain their rationale."

Huffman, too, highlighted the importance of student involvement."Adults aren't going to be shopping at American Eagle or Forever 21," she says, "They don't know that it's not even possible to buy a dress that goes to your knees." Like Huffman, Kate Brown, a senior at Montclair High School, in Montclair, New Jersey, met with school administrators after organizing a protest, helping secure many of the policy changes her campaign had sought: removing words like "distracting."

After all, teachers and administration don't always realize that their policies are offensive-and this is where more education comes in. "Even for a lot of teachers in 2015, they have never had a trans student or a gender-nonconforming student where they've had to deal with this," Finucane-Terlop says. "It's new to them, so I understand that they might not know how to react."

Ultimately, such rules could be the wrong way to handle some of the issues that they purport to cover. Since so many have previously been used to address the potential of sexual harassment in schools regarding male students paying inappropriate attention to female students, it's clear other practices, like courses on respect and harassment, may be needed to fill this gap. These initiatives would shift the focus of school policies. "Is it possible that we can educate our boys to not be 'distracted' by their peers and not engage in misogyny and objectification of women's bodies?" asks Riddhi Sandil, a psychologist and co-founder of the Sexuality, Women and Gender Project at Teachers College at Columbia University.

" I think we live in a culture that's so used to looking at issues of harassment and assault through the wrong end of the telescope," Bates says, "that it would be really refreshing to see somebody turn it around and focus on the kind of behavior that is directed at girls rather than to police girls' own clothing."

There's a growing interest in making dress codes as gender-neutral as possible as a means of reducing sexism and LGBT discrimination. But even beyond policy changes, students say there needs to be a fundamental shift in admitting that teachers and administrators come in with their own set of biases, which they may bring to creating and enforcing school rules. "I feel like there's this misconception ... that you can separate your prejudice from your profession, because so often prejudice is unconscious," says Vela. "The biggest piece of advice I can offer is to recognize that."

In order to combat latent prejudices, schools must first acknowledge that they exist.
*This article previously stated that Arkansas's entire statewide dress code exclusively applies to females. We regret the error.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Li Zhou is a former editorial fellow at The Atlantic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These policies can perpetuate discrimination against female students, as well as LGBT students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal rights are the belief that animals have a right to be free of human use and exploitation, but there is a great deal of confusion about what that means. Animal rights are not about putting animals above humans or giving animals the same rights as humans. Also, animal rights are very different from animal welfare.

To most animal rights activists, animal rights are grounded in a rejection of speciesism and the knowledge that animals have sentience (the ability to suffer). (Learn more about the basic tenets of animal rights.)

Freedom from Human Use and Exploitation

Humans use and exploit animals in myriad ways, including meat, milk, eggs, animal experimentation, fur, hunting, and circuses.

With the possible exception of animal experimentation, all of these uses of animals are frivolous. People don't need meat, eggs, milk, fur, hunting or circuses. The American Dietetic Association recognizes that people can be perfectly healthy as vegans.

Regarding animal experimentation, most would agree that testing of cosmetics and household products is unnecessary. A new furniture polish or lipstick seems a frivolous reason to the blind, maim, and kill hundreds or thousands of rabbits.

Many would also say that scientific experimentation on animals for the sake of science, with no immediate, obvious application to human health, is unnecessary because the suffering of the animals outweighs the satisfaction of human curiosity. This leaves only medical experiments. While animal experimentation may lead to human medical advancements, we cannot morally justify exploiting animals for experiments any more than experiments on mental patients or babies can be justified.

Justifications for Animal Exploitation

The most common justifications for animal use are:

Animals are not intelligent (cannot think/reason).

Animals are not as important as people.

Animals have no duties.

God put animals here for us to use.

Rights cannot be determined by the ability to think, or we'd have to give intelligence tests to determine which humans deserve rights. This would mean that babies, the mentally disabled and the mentally ill would have no rights.

Importance is not a good criterion for rights holding because importance is highly subjective and individuals have their own interests that make each individual important to him/herself. One person may find that their own pets are more important to them than a stranger on the other side of the world, but that doesn't give them the right to kill and eat that stranger.

The President of the United States might be more important to a larger number of people, but that doesn't give the president the right to kill people and mount their heads on the wall as trophies. One could also argue that a single blue whale is more important than any single human being because the species is endangered and every individual is needed to help the population recover.

Duties are also not good criteria for rights holding because individuals who are incapable of recognizing or performing duties, such as babies or people with profound disabilities, still have a right to not be eaten or experimented on. Furthermore, animals are routinely killed for failing to follow human rules (e.g., the mouse who is killed in a mousetrap), so even if they have no duties, we punish them for failing to abide by our expectations.

Religious beliefs are also an inappropriate determination of rights holding because religious beliefs are highly subjective and personal. Even within a religion, people will disagree about what God dictates. We shouldn't impose our religious beliefs on others, and using religion to justify animal exploitation imposes our religion on the animals.

Because there will always be some humans who don't fit the criteria used to justify animal exploitation, the only true distinction between humans and non-human animals are species, which is an arbitrary line to draw between which individuals do and don't have rights. There is no magical dividing line between humans and non-human animals.

The Same Rights as Humans?

There is a common misconception that animal rights activists want nonhuman animals to have the same rights as people. No one wants cats to have the right to vote, or for dogs to have the right to bear arms. The issue is not whether animals should have the same rights as people, but whether we have a right to use and exploit them for our purposes, however frivolous they might be.

Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare

Animal rights are distinguishable from animal welfare. In general, the term "animal rights" is the belief that humans do not have a right to use animals for our own purposes. "Animal welfare" is the belief that humans do have a right to use animals as long as the animals are treated humanely. The animal rights position on factory farming would be that we do not have a right to slaughter animals for food no matter how well the animals are treated while they are alive, while the animal welfare position might want to see certain cruel practices eliminated.

"Animal welfare" describes a broad spectrum of views, while animal rights are more absolute. For example, some animal welfare advocates might want a ban on fur, while others might believe that fur is morally acceptable if the animals are killed "humanely" and do not suffer for too long in a trap. "Animal welfare" may also be used to describe the speciesist view that certain animals (e.g. dogs, cats, horses) are more deserving of protection than others (e.g. fish, chickens, cows).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Do Activists Mean By "Animal Rights?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal rights are the belief that animals have a right to be free of human use and exploitation, but there is a great deal of confusion about what that means. Animal rights are not about putting animals above humans or giving animals the same rights as humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The case against animal rights

A number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.

Animals don't think

Animals are not really conscious

Animals were put on earth to serve human beings

Animals don't have souls

Animals don't behave morally

Animals are not members of the 'moral community'

Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment

Animals don't think

St Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.

This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.

Animals are not really conscious

The French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.

This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all.

Animals were put on earth to serve human beings

This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species.

Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use."

St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them.

As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted.

However, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:

Animals don't have souls

Christian theologians used to teach that only beings with souls deserved ethical consideration.

Animals did not have souls and therefore did not have any moral rights.

This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul (human or animal) in a valid experimental way.

This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article discusses whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abused, broken and living in fear - life in the circus is a life of cruelty for animals. We have campaigned for decades to end animal circuses in the UK and Ireland. With your support, we will make animal circus acts history.

Animals are forced to perform unnatural tricks, transported around the country and kept in cramped, temporary accommodation. Animals suffer in the name of entertainment.

Cruel Training Methods

Bullhooks, whips and sticks are all tools of the trade that have been used to train animals. These painful methods cause animals to suffer and break their spirit. Powerful animals like tigers are scared of the ringmaster with a whip. Sometimes the trainer may try to hide their tool such as a bullhook from the watching crowd. But there is no denying it. Sadly pain and submission are all part of the show.

Unnatural Tricks

Tigers are forced to jump through hoops and elephants must stand on their heads. Domesticated animals such as horses are forced to carry numerous people on their backs and rear up on their hind legs. Animals do not choose to perform these tricks - they perform them from fear.

Travel and Temporary Accommodation

Circuses often travel, meaning that animals are kept in temporary housing which cannot meet their most basic welfare needs. Reduced to pacing back and forth on the back of a lorry, lions and tigers are denied freedom. Elephants who would roam for miles in the wild spend their nights chained by their legs. Horses and zebra live in makeshift stalls in tents. Animals trapped in these enclosures in circuses have been seen pacing, rocking, swaying - these stressed behaviours are often seen in animals in captivity.

Exposing Cruelty

As if this suffering isn't bad enough, our investigations into circuses have exposed mistreatment of animals behind the scenes. Investigations have exposed an elephant stabbed with a pitchford, kicked and beaten, horses slapped and a camel even spat at - it's hard to believe this cruelty still goes on.

What is Freedom for Animals Doing? -

We support protests at circuses spreading the word about cruel animal circuses

We educate the public about animal circuses by speaking up for animals in the media, online and in person

We lobby Government and councils to ban animal circuses

We investigate and expose animal circuses ensuring we have evidence to speak up for animals

We know you want to see an end to this cruelty. Join us in creating freedom for animals. Together we have achieved so much for animals suffering in circuses but we won't stop until all animals are free from the Big Top.

Take action against circuses today - be part of the change.

Latest

Related

Most read

Read more
Donate Fundraise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abused, broken and living in fear - life in the circus is a life of cruelty for animals. We have campaigned for decades to end animal circuses in the UK and Ireland. With your support, we will make animal circus acts history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prohibiting Circuses and Traveling Acts that Use Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wild animals used in circuses and traveling acts endure severe abuse and neglect. Help protect these animals by passing a ban on the use of animals in circuses and traveling acts in your own city and county!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers and manufacturers sometimes ask about the use of animals for testing cosmetics. The following information addresses the legal requirement for cosmetic safety and FDA policy on developing alternative methods.

FDA is responsible for assuring that cosmetics are safe and properly labeled. This mission is accomplished through enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), related statutes, and regulations promulgated under these laws.

The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.

Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety. In some cases, after considering available alternatives, companies may determine that animal testing is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient. FDA supports and adheres to the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing animal testing, including the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Moreover, in all cases where animal testing is used, FDA advocates that research and testing derive the maximum amount of useful scientific information from the minimum number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability.

We also believe that prior to use of animals, consideration should be given to the use of scientifically valid alternative methods to whole-animal testing. In 1997, FDA joined with thirteen other Federal agencies in forming the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). ICCVAM and its supporting center, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), coordinate the development, validation, acceptance, and harmonization of alternative toxicological test methods throughout the U.S. Federal Government. To learn more, visit the ICCVAM and NICEATM websites.

FDA supports the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing as well as adherence to the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability when animals are used for testing the safety of cosmetic products. We will continue to be a strong advocate of methodologies for the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests with alternative methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.
More Resources from FDA: Resources from Other U.S. Government Agencies: Resources from the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR):
May 31, 1999; Updated April 5, 2006. This information is current. It is updated only when needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers and manufacturers sometimes ask about the use of animals for testing cosmetics. The following information addresses the legal requirement for cosmetic safety and FDA policy on developing alternative methods. FDA is responsible for assuring that cosmetics are safe and properly labeled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chickens

The United States raises and slaughters almost 10 times more birds than any other type of animal. Approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their meat every year, while another 300 million chickens are used in egg production. All birds-meat chickens, egg-laying hens, turkeys, ducks, geese and others-are excluded from all federal animal protection laws. By sheer number, these are the animals most urgently in need of protection. The ASPCA is working actively with companies that buy or raise chickens to encourage the adoption of higher-welfare practices.

Many people do not realize that the breed of chicken used for modern egg production is different than the breed used for meat production. If you put them next to each other, they look almost nothing alike! Each has been selectively bred for hyper-production: egg-laying hens for high egg volume, and "meat" chickens for rapid growth and maximum breast meat yield. Both types suffer from physical problems brought on by genetic selection for these traits. Read our report [PDF] to learn more about the negative impacts of selective breeding in the chicken meat industry.

Chickens Raised for Meat ("Broiler" Chickens)

Nearly all meat chickens are raised indoors in large sheds containing 20,000 chickens (or more) crowded together on the shed floor. Due to the high concentration of birds living atop of their own waste without adequate ventilation, high ammonia levels develop- irritating eyes, throats and skin.

Modern chickens look very little like their wild chicken ancestors. Thanks to selective breeding-combined with low-dose antibiotics, excessive feeding and inadequate exercise-most industrially raised meat chickens grow unnaturally quickly and disproportionately. While their breasts grow large to meet market demand, their skeletons and organs lag behind. Many suffer heart failure, trouble breathing, leg weakness and chronic pain. Some cannot support their own weight and become crippled, unable to reach food and water.

To keep them eating and growing, industrial farms restrict chickens' sleep by keeping the lights on almost all the time. As they grow, meat chickens become crowded together, competing for space. This constant interaction makes sleep even harder [PDF]. As chickens die, their bodies are sometimes left among the living, adding to the stress and unhygienic conditions.
Quick Facts

In 1925, it took 16 weeks to raise a chicken to 2.5 pounds. Today, chickens weigh double that in just six weeks!

According to the University of Arkansas [PDF], if humans grew at a similar rate, a 6.6-pound newborn baby would weigh 660 pounds after two months.

Chickens experience REM sleep, which is associated with dreaming. Unfortunately, on factory farms, lights are kept on almost all day and night to encourage more eating (and growth), which means chickens are chronically sleep-deprived [PDF].

Progress for Chickens Egg-Laying Hens
The roughly 330 million egg-laying hens [PDF] in the U.S. are mostly raised in long, windowless sheds containing rows of stacked "battery cages." Up to 10 hens are packed together in one wire cage roughly the size of a file drawer. The frustration of living in such unnatural conditions leads to abnormal pecking behavior and cannibalism. To "fix" this problem, the industry burns or cuts off a portion of hens' sensitive beaks. With cages stacked and birds crowded together, workers may not be able to access or see all their birds, leaving sick or injured hens to suffer or die.

Since eggs are laid only by females, what happens to the males? Half of the chicks hatched in this industry are male, but there's no market for male chicks born with egg-layer genetics since they're slow-growing and lanky, so they are killed at the hatchery.

Hens whose egg production drops due to age are either killed on farm or sent to slaughter. Some farms will withhold proper nutrition for up to two weeks to shock the bird's body into a molt to kickstart a final laying cycle.

The ASPCA is working actively with companies that buy eggs or raise hens to encourage the adoption of higher-welfare practices.
Quick Facts

Battery cages provide less floor space per bird than a regular 8½" x 11" sheet of paper.

The European Union banned battery cages in 1999 (allowing a 12-year phase out period).

Progress for Hens

Consumers are becoming savvy to misleading labels on eggs. Learn more about what various claims and certifications mean with our Egg Label Guide.

Some states are banning the use of battery cages and even the sale of eggs from caged hens. See where your state stands on confinement bans.

Hundreds of companies have set policies to go 100% cage-free [PDF].

Many companies have already adopted certification programs that ban cages, address de-beaking, and require more space, nest boxes, perches and other enrichments. Learn about welfare-certified and plant-based egg brands on our Shop With Your Heart brand list.

Pigs

The U.S. raises around 120 million pigs for food each year, the vast majority [PDF] of whom are raised in barren crates or pens at industrial-scale facilities without fresh air or sunlight. They live on hard, slatted floors that do not accommodate their natural urge to root. Ammonia fumes rise to dangerous, uncomfortable levels due to high concentrations of waste. The ASPCA is working actively with companies that buy pork or raise pigs to encourage the adoption of higher-welfare practices.

Pigs tend to be curious and intelligent animals, so barren surroundings can cause frustration exhibited in abnormal behavior like tail-biting. To "fix" this, the industry has adopted a common practice of cutting off a portion of pigs' tails and/or their teeth, without painkillers.

Most female breeding pigs (sows) in the U.S. spend their reproductive lives confined to a gestation crate. These crates are barely bigger than the sow's body and prohibit her from turning around. Sows are artificially inseminated and kept in their gestation stalls until a few days before delivering, at which time they are moved to equally restrictive farrowing crates to give birth. They remain there while nursing their young, and then are placed back in their gestation crates and re-inseminated. This cycle continues for several years, until the sows are no longer as productive and are sent to slaughter.
Quick Facts

In natural environments, about 24 hours before giving birth pregnant pigs will leave their social group to collect branches and soft materials to build a nest. The mother will stay isolated in her nest with her newborns for the first week, which allows her to develop a strong bond with her piglets.

Both male and female pigs are raised for food.

Pigs are as smart as or smarter than most dogs. They are one of only a few species Americans consider suitable for both keeping as pets and raising for food.

Progress for Pigs

Consumers are becoming savvy to misleading labels on pork. Learn more about what various claims and certifications mean with our Pork Label Guide.

Some states have banned the use of gestation crates and even banned the sale of pork from animals kept in cages, or those born to mothers kept in cages. See where your state stands on confinement bans.

Dozens of companies have explicitly banned gestation crates from their supply chains, and many companies are working with the ASPCA to adopt welfare certifications.

​Many companies have already adopted certification programs that ban cages, address certain physical alternations, require more spacious and enriched group housing, and offer pigs adequate bedding and nesting materials. Learn about welfare-certified and plant-based pork brands on our Shop With Your Heart brand list.

Cattle

Cattle are raised and processed across several distinct industries with differing practices and welfare concerns. The ASPCA is working actively with companies that raise cattle or buy their products (beef, dairy or veal) to encourage the adoption of higher-welfare practices.
Beef Cattle
Cattle raised for beef are the only farm animals still raised largely outdoors. Sometime between the ages of six months and one year, most beef cattle are sent to live their last few months in feedlots with hundreds or thousands of others. Without vegetated pasture and often without shelter, the cattle may suffer from digestive distress from being fed corn and other foods not natural to ruminants, as well as from heat stress, muddy conditions and respiratory issues from dust.

Routine practices that cause pain and distress for cattle include branding and castration. Beef cattle may also often endure several long transport events, which are stressful for animals and are inadequately regulated.
Quick Facts

Studies show [PDF] that cattle are social animals with herd hierarchies and strong cow-calf bonds. They can also distinguish between individual humans-showing fear responses to those who have handled them roughly.

To increase their weight, beef cattle in feedlots are fed a corn and soy diet that is very hard on their bodies and can cause illnesses, including ulcers.

Virtually all beef cattle are "grass-fed" because they begin their lives on grass. "Grass-finished" distinguishes those cattle who spend their lives eating grasses and are never sent to a feedlot.

Progress for Beef Cattle Dairy Cows
Most cows used for dairy production are kept indoors, with some having access to outdoor concrete or dirt paddocks. Many are tethered by chains or other materials around their necks in what are called "tie stalls." Unnaturally high milk production can lead to mastitis, a painful bacterial infection of a cow's udder. Dairy cows often have up to two-thirds of their tails and their horns removed without painkillers.

Just as with humans, cows only produce milk as a side effect of giving birth. To keep the milk flowing, dairy farms artificially inseminate cows once a year. Their gestation period lasts nine months, so the majority of most dairy cows' lives are spent pregnant. When a calf is born, he or she is removed from the mother-generally that same day-to make the mother's milk available for collection. This can be hugely traumatic to mother cows and to their calves. Male offspring are often raised for veal, while females become the next generation of dairy cows.

While large-scale dairy operations are typically separate from beef cattle operations, these industries are connected. Dairy cows usually end up at beef slaughterhouses when, at two to five years of age, their milk production has slowed or they are too crippled or ill to continue in the industry. At that point, they are slaughtered for beef.
Quick Facts Progress for Dairy Cows

Consumers are becoming savvy to misleading labels on dairy. Learn more about what various claims and certifications mean with our Dairy Label Guide.

States including California, Ohio and Rhode Island have banned tail-docking of dairy cows, and we expect more to follow. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of Bovine Practitioners both oppose tail-docking for lack of evidence that it provides benefits.

Some companies are developing policies and making commitments to address dairy cow welfare. Check out all of the companies that worked with the ASPCA to commit to higher-welfare practices.

Many companies have already adopted certification programs that ban tail-docking and tie stalls, require outdoor access, and provide guidance to reduce stress and pain from lameness and weaning. Learn about welfare-certified and plant-based dairy brands on our Shop With Your Heart brand list.

Veal Calves
Veal is the meat of young cattle who are usually born to dairy cows. As males, veal calves are of little use to the dairy industry, and as a dairy breed, they are inefficient beef-producers.

Traditional veal meat was made pale and tender by restricting calves' diets and keeping them in stalls so small they could barely move. Increasingly, calves are housed in groups beginning at about six weeks old, but they still lack sufficient space, enrichment, outdoor exercise, solid food and the fulfillment of a basic instinct to suckle.
Quick Facts

The veal industry would not exist without the dairy industry. On industrial farms, calves are generally taken from their dairy-cow mothers within a day of birth to be raised for meat.

Veal calves' diets and movements are tightly restricted to keep their muscles from developing, which makes the resulting meat tender.

Progress for Veal Calves
The use of veal crates has dramatically declined since the American Veterinary Medical Association said that calves should be able to turn around and the veal industry's trade group recommended "that the entire veal industry convert to the group housing methodology."

Turkeys

Approximately 240 million turkeys [PDF] are raised for meat in the U.S. annually. Like chickens, turkeys suffer from growth-related lameness and are housed in groups on the floors of long sheds where they are denied fresh air, sunshine and pasture. Turkeys also develop abnormal behaviors in these environments, which can result in cannibalism. The ASPCA is working actively with companies that raise turkeys or buy turkey to encourage the adoption of higher-welfare practices.

Modern, industrially raised turkeys look very little like their wild ancestors. For one, they are disproportionately breast-heavy (a result of genetic selection), reflecting a consumer preference for breast meat. Their unnaturally fast and disproportionate growth causes painful physical ailments and difficulty walking or even breathing.

Turkeys have become so unnaturally disproportionate that they can no longer mate with one another. Their bodies, which were only meant to reproduce once per year, are further damaged by year-round artificial insemination.
Quick Facts

Between 1930 and 2017, the weight of the average turkey raised for food in the U.S. more than doubled from 13 to 30 pounds.

Turkeys have the innate urge to perch and fly, but the selectively bred turkeys on factory farms are too large to do so.

Progress for Turkeys

Aquaculture

There is a common misconception that fish and other aquatic vertebrates do not feel pain; however, studies demonstrate that they are sentient and capable of both fear and suffering [PDF]. Aquaculture-the farming of fish and other aquatic species-is one of the fastest-growing areas of food production, surpassing global beef production. About half of all consumed fish-namely salmon, tuna, cod, trout and halibut-are raised in artificial environments, as opposed to being wild-caught, creating a number of welfare concerns.

As on industrial land-based farms, farmed fish are often housed in overcrowded conditions ripe for injury, disease transfer and stress. Industrial fisheries are reliant on antibiotics to treat the parasites and diseases promoted by these unnatural conditions.

As there are no regulations around the humane treatment of fish, they most often are not stunned before slaughter, meaning that they are fully conscious. They are killed by bleeding out, blunt force, suffocation or freezing.
Quick Facts

Studies repeatedly show that fish behavior, cognition and pain perception match or exceed other vertebrates.

Most farmed fish are carnivores and depend on smaller, wild-caught fish for feed. It can take up to four pounds of feeder fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon or other carnivorous fish, meaning that there's a net protein loss in fish farming.

The U.S. exports about 70% of the fish we raise and imports cheaper seafood products for U.S. consumption.

Progress for Fish

There is increasing awareness of and concern about the treatment of fish resulting from recent investigations and media reports.

While there are currently no animal welfare certifications that extend to fish and other aquatic species, the ASPCA is encouraging welfare certification programs to develop these standards. In the meantime, plant-based seafood alternatives are increasingly available and can be found on the Shop With Your Heart brand list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States raises and slaughters almost 10 times more birds than any other type of animal. Approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their meat every year, while another 300 million chickens are used in egg production. All birds-meat chickens, egg-laying hens, turkeys, ducks, geese and others-are excluded from all federal animal protection laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While there are clear environmental and health benefits to veganism, the most compelling argument for removing animal products from your diet is ultimately an ethical one. Animals - yes, even fish - are complex creatures that are fully capable of experiencing pain and joy. The farm animal industry would certainly like us to ignore this fact, but when we look at the realities farm animals face, it's clear that adopting a vegan diet is the only truly humane choice.

Factory Farmed or Free-Range - Animals Suffer When You Eat Meat

If you're reading this, there's a good chance you're already aware of the horrible conditions - including cramped, unsanitary living quarters, lack of sunlight and persistent disease - encountered in factory farms. While free-range and other supposedly "humane" types of farming are advertised as an alternative to this, in fact they only prove what animal rights activists have known all along - namely that cows, chickens, pigs and other "livestock" are all highly intelligent, social creatures deserving of a long and happy life. If we are to honor this fact, avoiding the use of animal products entirely is the logical choice.

Animal Agriculture Kills Wild Animals, Too

It's not only farm animals that suffer at the hands of the agricultural industry. Each year in the U.S., more than 3 million animals - including endangered species such as golden and bald eagles, as well as domesticated cats and dogs - are killed by Wildlife Services (a federal agency) in an effort to eradicate "nuisance" wildlife that could potentially attack "livestock". These animals are often killed indiscriminately, often in painful, drawn-out ways. The current trend of free-range farming will only mean more collateral damage to animals living freely in nearby areas.

Eggs Aren't Harmless

Taking a stand for animals can't end with cutting out meat. If we are to be truly informed and ethical eaters, it is necessary to understand the harsh realities of egg farming, too. Here are some facts you might not be aware of:

Hens in industrial farms are forced to lay up to 30 times more eggs than they would naturally

95% of all egg-laying hens live out their lives in cramped battery cages, where they are often cruelly de-beaked and frequently suffer from broken bones, hemorrhaging and dehydration

Every year, 200,000,000 male chicks are killed by the egg production industry - typically by suffocation or ground up alive in industrial macerators

Neither is Dairy

The situation in a modern dairy farm is no less grim. Most newborn calves are forcibly removed from their mothers within 12 hours so that milking can begin. This separation is extremely distressing to both the mother and her calf. They often call for each other for days. Then, the calf will spend the first 2-3 months trapped alone in a small pen and fed a special milk replacer engineered to fatten them up for production as quickly as possible.

Once they are old enough to lactate, they begin a cycle of forced impregnation that takes an increasingly heavy toll on their bodies. When production declines around age four or five - less then a quarter of their natural lifespan - most dairy cows are unceremoniously slaughtered and sold for meat.

Vegan Diets Save the Lives of Animals

Every day - often without thinking - we make a series of small decisions about the foods we put in our bodies. Recognizing that you alone decide what to eat is the first step in ending animal cruelty. While many people find this intimidating, it can also be empowering.

To learn more about the link between veganism and animal rights issues, keep browsing our website and explore some of the resources we've put together for anyone who wants to make more responsible, humane dietary choices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Veganism and Animal Rights: How Your Diet Affects Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While there are clear environmental and health benefits to veganism, the most compelling argument for removing animal products from your diet is ultimately an ethical one. Animals - yes, even fish - are complex creatures that are fully capable of experiencing pain and joy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDA accused of ignoring animal welfare violations in favor of business interests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former USDA employees say inspectors were discouraged from documenting poor welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Dream Jobs: Animal rights activist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gene Baur talks about his work as an animal rights activist and shares why it is important to find a career you like.