Free Speech Unmuted: Book Bansor Are They? – Reason

You can watch on YouTube, or subscribe on any podcast platform. It's put together by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where I'll be starting as the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow in May.

The first episode (about 30 minutes) is about the First Amendment and public school libraries' removing books. Jane and I had a lot of fun recording this; hope you have fun watching or listening to it! And of course please spread it far and wide.

See the original post here:

Free Speech Unmuted: Book Bansor Are They? - Reason

How Supreme Court arguments over social media laws and free speech defined social media itself – Quartz

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday for two lawsuits about how social media giants should or should not be able to regulate speech on their platforms. Chief justices went back and forth with state solicitors general and their opposing party, making what may seem like far-fetched comparisons between social media and everything from bookstores to parade organizers and wedding planners.

Facebook's 2016 election problems will be the same in 2024 | What's Next for Meta?

The two cases in question one from Florida, one from Texas were brought by NetChoice, a trade association that represents social media sites like Metas Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and more. NetChoice said two state laws in Florida and Texas that ban companies from censoring content on their platforms are actually forms of censorship themselves. Paul Clement, the attorney for NetChoice, argued that the laws violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, forcing platforms to host posts that violate their policies.

At the heart of NetChoices argument is that social media platforms are like newspapers, so editorializing content is their First Amendment right.

But Florida solicitor general Henry Whitaker said social media is more like a telephone company (pdf): If Verizon asserted a First Amendment right to cancel disfavored subscribers at a whim, that claim would fail.

The design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech not to enable it. That is why the telephone company and the delivery service have no First Amendment right to use their services as a chokepoint to silence those they disfavor, he said.

Texas solicitor general Aaron Nielson had a similar argument (pdf), but likened social media to a public square. [I]f platforms that passively host the speech of billions of people are themselves the speakers and can discriminate, there will be no public square to speak of.

One concern of chief justice Amy Coney Barrett is that the state laws would consider algorithms to be editors, meaning that states could ban how algorithms are applied by online sites or other businesses that sell content. Florida solicitor general Whitaker said algorithms are just a means of sites organizing content, not editorializing it.

That led to more concern, though. Could Florida enact a law telling bookstores that they have to put everything out by alphabetical order? Coney Barrett asked.

Whitaker said, no, the state laws prevent social media sites from censorship, not how they organize their content.

But NetChoices Clement argued that algorithms are editors: These algorithms dont spring from the ether. They are essentially computer programs designed by humans to try to do some of this editorial function. That means that a Supreme Court ruling allowing the state laws to remain would open the door for lawsuits against how algorithms function.

Were not quite sure who it covers, chief justice Ketanji Brown told Whitaker about the Florida law.

So Whitaker said the Florida law would apply to sites like Etsy and Uber, meaning those sites couldnt ban user-generated content unless they provide thorough rationale. Meanwhile, Nielson said the Texas state law, which is narrower than Floridas in scope, wouldnt apply to platforms outside of classic social media sites.

Read the original here:

How Supreme Court arguments over social media laws and free speech defined social media itself - Quartz

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms – Texas Standard

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in two cases related to some of the worlds biggest social media platforms.

Considered by many to be two of the hottest free speech cases of the internet age, one case is from Texas, the other from Florida. And though there are slight differences between the two state laws being challenged here, the cases appear to center on a central question: do social media companies have the right to independently decide what content appears on their platforms, amplifying or removing content as they see fit?

The social media companies say their First Amendment free speech rights are being violated with the Texas and Florida laws. The states say those social media companies arent entitled to First Amendment free speech protection. And it may come down to whether a majority of the court sees social media as more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company.

Charles Rocky Rhodes, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said both of these laws are on hold and have not yet gone into effect because of pending court cases.

They were a response to some of the social media platforms de-platforming Donald Trump and other politicians in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Rhodes said. And there was a concern from Texas and from Florida that [these politicians] were being targeted because of their conservative beliefs.

And so the idea of both of these laws was to try to keep social media platforms from banning individuals or discriminating against individuals based on the viewpoints of their speech. And it also placed some very onerous burdens on social media companies with respect to disclosure requirements of their terms and their policies with respect to data management and content, and the use policies that they would be using.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

The plaintiff in the case is NetChoice, an industry association that includes most of the big platforms we all think of Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, etc.

Theyre making the play that when they are deciding which messages to amplify and which messages that they want to remove from their platform, that they are acting as the modern editor of a newspaper, and there are good precedent for the United States Supreme Court saying that a state cant tell a newspaper what to print, Rhodes said.

Theyre arguing that the same principle applies to them, that they are allowed to make editorial decisions on their private platform. And this is something that people have to keep in mind that the social media companies, as big and important as they are, are not the government. They are actually privately-owned.

Texas and Florida, however, say these companies are acting as a common carrier and therefore do not have a claim to free speech.

Theyre trying to say that social media companies are a modern equivalent of what used to be a very familiar idea of the common carrier, that they dont have the ability to discriminate with respect to their service. They have to accept everyone, Rhodes said. And the social media companies come back and say, well, common carriers were different because they never engaged in their own expressive activities.

Common carriers did sometimes transmit the speech of others, like a telegraph would be the old example, or telephone But they did not actually engage in their own expressive activities. And the social media companies are claiming that we do because we are trying to communicate messages. Were creating news feeds for individuals. Were trying to increase, of course, advertising streams that we are engaged in expressive activities in a way that your internet service provider or in a way that your telephone company is not.

As this case goes forward, Rhodes said the states arguments are rooted in political ideology.

The Texas law has a specific exemption for companies under 50 million users. So it wouldnt cover conservative sites like Parler, he said. The Florida law had exemptions for Disney and for Universal that were then taken out once Disney and Universal started criticizing Florida [political leaders]. A big part of the underlying motivation for these laws was the political concern that conservatives thought that their voices were being removed from the site and the marketplace of ideas.

View original post here:

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms - Texas Standard

Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse: Why the Academy Must Step Forward | TechPolicy.Press – Tech Policy Press

On Tuesday, Columbia Engineering and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University co-hosted a well-attended symposium, Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse. The event combined presentations about technical research relevant to the subject with addresses and panels discussing the implications of AI for democracy and civil society.

While a range of topics were covered across three keynotes, a series of seed funding presentations, and two panelsone on empirical and technological questions and a second on legal and philosophical questionsa number of notable recurring themes emerged, some by design and others more organically:

This event was part of one partnership amongst others in an effort that Columbia University president Manouche Shafik and engineering school dean Shih-Fu Chang referred to as AI+x, where the school is seeking to engage with various other parts of the university outside of computer engineering to better explore the potential impacts of current developments in artificial intelligence. (This event was also a part of Columbias Dialogue Across Difference initiative, which was established as part of a response to campus conflict around the Israel-Gaza conflict.) From its founding, the Knight Institute has focused on how new technologies affect democracy, requiring collaboration with experts in those technologies.

Speakers on the first panel highlighted sectors where they have already seen potential for positive societal impact of AI, outside of the speech issues that the symposium was focussed on. These included climate science, drug discovery, social work, and creative writing. Columbia engineering professor Carl Vondrick suggested that current large language models are optimized for social media and search, a legacy of their creation by corporations that focus on these domains, and the panelists noted that only by working directly with diverse groups can their needs for more customized models be understood. Princeton researcher Arvind Narayanan proposed that domain experts play a role in evaluating models as, in his opinion, the current approach of benchmarking using standardized tests is seriously flawed.

During the conversation between Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight Institute, and Harvard Kennedy School security technologist Bruce Schneier, general principles for successful interdisciplinary work were discussed, like humility, curiosity and listening to each other; gathering early in the process; making sure everyone is taken seriously; and developing a shared vocabulary to communicate across technical, legal, and other domains. Jaffer recalled that some proposals have a lot more credibility in the eyes of policymakers when they are interdisciplinary. Cornell Tech law professor James Grimmelman, who specializes in helping lawyers and technologists understand each other, remarked that these two groups are particularly well-equipped to work together, once they can figure out what the other needs to know.

President Shafik declared that if a responsible approach to AIs impact on society requires a +x, Columbia (surely along with other large research universities) has lots of xs. This positions universities as ideal voices for the public good, to balance out the influence of the tech industry that is developing and controlling the new generation of large language models.

Stanfords Tatsunori Hashimoto, who presented his work on watermarking generative AI text outputs, emphasized that the vendors of these models are secretive, and so the only way to develop a public technical understanding of them is to build them within the academy, and take on the same tasks as the commercial engineers, like working on alignment fine-tuning and performing independent evaluations. One relevant and striking finding by his group was that the reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process tends to push models towards the more liberal opinions common amongst highly-educated Americans.

The engineering panel developed a wishlist of infrastructure resources that universities (and others outside of the tech industry) need to be able to study how AI can be used to benefit and not harm society, such as compute resources, common datasets, separate syntax models so that vetted content datasets can be added for specific purposes, and student access to models. In the second panel, Camille Franois, a lecturer at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs and presently a senior director of trust & safety at Niantic Labs, highlighted the importance of having spaces, presumably including university events such as the one at Columbia, to discuss how AI developments are impacting civil discourse. On a critical note, Knight Institute executive director Katy Glenn Bass also pointed out that universities often do not value cross-disciplinary work to the same degree as typical research, and this is an obstacle to progress in this area, given how essential collaboration across disciplines is.

Proposals for regulation were made throughout the symposium, a number of which are listed below, but the keynote by Bruce Schneier was itself an argument for government intervention. Schneiers thesis was, in brief, that corporation-controlled development of generative AI has the potential to undermine the trust that society needs to thrive, as chatbot assistants and other AI systems may present as interpersonally trustworthy, but in reality are essentially designed to drive profits for corporations. To restore trust, it is incumbent on governments to impose safety regulations, much as they do for airlines. He proposed a regulatory agency for the AI and robotics industry, and the development of public AI models, created under political accountability and available for academic and new for-profit uses, enabling a freer market for AI innovation.

Specific regulatory suggestions included:

A couple of cautions were also voiced: Narayanan warned that the Liars Dividend could be weaponized by authoritarian governments to crack down on free expression, and Franois noted the focus on watermarking and deepfakes at the expense of unintended harms, such as chatbots giving citizens incorrect voting information.

There was surprisingly little discussion during the symposium of how generative AI specifically influences public discourse, which Jaffer defined in his introductory statement as acts of speaking and listening that are part of the process of democracy and self-governance. Rather, much of the conversation was about online speech generally, and how it can be influenced by this technology. As such, an earlier focus of online speech debates, social media, came up a number of times, with clear parallels in terms of concern over corporate control and a need for transparency.

Hashimoto referenced the notion that social media causes feedback loops that greatly amplify certain opinions. LLMs can develop data feedback loops which may cause a similar phenomenon that is very difficult to identify and unpick without substantial research. As chatbots become more personalized, suggested Vondrick, they may also create feedback on an individual user level, directing them to more and more of the type of content that they have already expressed an affinity for, akin to the social media filter bubble hypothesis.

Another link to social media was drawn in the last panel, during which both Grimmelmann and Franois drew on their expertise in content moderation. They agreed that the most present danger to discourse from generative AI is inauthentic content and behavior overwhelming the platforms that we rely on, and worried that we may not yet have the tools and infrastructure to counter it. (Franois described a key tension between the Musk effect pushing disinvestment in content moderation and the Brussels effect encouraging a ramping up in on-platform enforcement via the DSA.) At the same time, trust and safety approaches like red-teaming and content policy development are proving key to developing LLMs responsibly. The correct lesson to draw from the failures to regulate social media, proposed Grimmelmann, was the danger of giving up on antitrust enforcement, which could be of great value when current AI foundation models are developed and controlled by a few (and in several cases the same) corporations.

One final theme was a framing of the current moment as one of transition. Even though we are grappling with how to adapt to realistic, readily available synthetic content at scale, there will be a point in the future, perhaps even for todays young children, that this will be intuitively understood and accounted for, or at least that media literacy education, or tools (like watermarking) will have caught up.

Several speakers referenced prior media revolutions. Narayanan was one of several who discussed the printing press, pointing out that even this was seen as a crisis of authority: no longer could the written word be assumed to be trusted. Wikipedia was cited by Columbia Engineering professor Kathy McKeown as an example of media that was initially seen as untrustworthy, but whose benefits, shortcomings, and suitable usage are now commonly understood. Franois noted that use of generative AI is far from binary and that we have not yet developed good frameworks to evaluate the range of applications. Grimmelman mentioned both Wikipedia and the printing press as examples of technologies where no one could have accurately predicted how things would shake out in the end.

As the Knight Institutes Glenn Bass stated explicitly, we should not assume that generative AI is harder to work through than previous media crises, or that we are worse equipped to deal with it. However, two speakers flagged that the tech industry should not be the given free rein: USC Annenbergs Mike Ananny warned that those with invested interests may attempt to prematurely push for stabilization and closure, and we should treat this with suspicion; and Princetons Narayanan noted that this technology is producing a temporary societal upheaval and that its costs should be distributed fairly. Returning to perhaps the dominant takeaways from the event, these comments again implied a role for the academy and for the government in guiding the development of, adoption of, and adaptation to the emerging generation of generative AI.

Read more:

Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse: Why the Academy Must Step Forward | TechPolicy.Press - Tech Policy Press

Supreme Court to hear landmark case on social media, free speech – University of Southern California

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases that could fundamentally change how social media platforms moderate content online. The justices will consider the constitutionality of laws introduced by Texas and Florida targeting what they see as the censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media platforms.

The central issue is whether platforms like Facebook and X should have sole discretion over what content is permitted on their platforms. A decision is expected by June.USC experts are available to discuss.

Depending on the ruling, companies may face stricter regulations or be allowed more autonomy in controlling their online presence. Tighter restrictions would require marketers to exercise greater caution in content creation and distribution, prioritizing transparency, and adherence to guidelines to avoid legal repercussions. Alternatively, a ruling in favor of greater moderation powers could potentially raise consumer concerns about censorship and brand authenticity, said Kristen Schiele, an associate professor of clinical marketing at the USC Marshall School of Business.

Regardless of the verdict, companies will need to adapt their strategies to align with advancing legal standards and consumer expectations in the digital landscape. Stricter regulations will require a more thorough screening of content to ensure compliance. Marketers may need to invest more resources to understand and adhere to the evolving legislations, which would lead to shifts in budget allocation and strategy development. In response, the industry will most likely see new content moderation technologies and platforms emerge to help companies navigate legal challenges and still create effective marketing campaigns, she said.

Erin Miller is an expert on theories of speech and free speech rights, and especially their application to mass media. She also writes on issues of moral and criminal responsibility. Her teaching areas include First Amendment theory and criminal procedure. Miller is an assistant professor of law at the USC Gould School of Law.

Content:emiller@law.usc.edu

###

Jef Pearlman is a clinical associate professor of law and director of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic at the USC Gould School of Law.

Contact:jef@law.usc.edu

###

Karen Northis a recognized expert in the field of digital and social media, with interests spanning personal and corporate brand building, digital election meddling, reputation management, product development, and safety and privacy online. North is a clinical professor of communication at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Contact:knorth@usc.edu

###

Wendy Wood is an expert in the nature of habits. Wood co-authored a study exploring how fake news spreads on social media, which found that platforms more than individual users have a larger role to play in stopping the spread of misinformation online.

Contact:wendy.wood@usc.edu

###

Emilio Ferrara is an expert incomputational social sciences who studies socio-technical systems and information networks to unveil the communication dynamics that govern our world. Ferrara isis a professor of computer science and communication at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Contact:emiliofe@usc.edu

###

(Photo/Benjamin Sow/Unsplash)

See original here:

Supreme Court to hear landmark case on social media, free speech - University of Southern California

America Divided Part II: Mideast war magnifies free speech challenges on college campuses – The Daily Reflector

Since Hamas Oct. 7 attacks inside Israel and U.S. support for the resulting war in Gaza, protests and rallies have sprouted at college campuses across the U.S.

Tempers have flared, and tensions have risen.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAm%92E :?4=F56D 2 C:D6 😕 C6A@CED @7 2?E:D6>:E:D>[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 p?E:s672>2E:@? {628F6[ H9:49 D2H 2 be`T C:D6 😕 2?E:y6H:D9 :?4:56?ED 7C@> ~4E] f E@ y2?] f 4@>A2C65 E@ 2 J62C 28@]k^Am

kAm%96 r@F?4:= @? p>6C:42?xD=2>:4 #6=2E:@?D Wrpx#X 2=D@ D2H 2 `fgT :?4C62D6 😕 C6A@CED @7 2?E:|FD=:> 2?5 2?E:!2=6DE:?:2? :?4:56?ED 24C@DD E96 &]$] 5FC:?8 E96 =2DE E9C66 >@?E9D @7 a_ab]k^Am

kAm(2C AC@E6DED 2?5 :?46?5:2CJ C96E@C:4 @? 42>AFD6D 92G6 2=D@ DA2C<65 ?6H 5632E6D 2?5 E6?D:@?D @G6C E96 =2?5D42A6 7@C 7C66 DA6649[ H96? E92E DA6649 4C@DD6D =682= =:?6D 2?5 E96 7FEFC6 @7 5:DD6?E @? 42>AFD6D]k^Am

A pro-Israel demonstrator shouts at Palestinian supporters during a protest at Columbia University, Oct. 12, 2023, in New York. More than 40 U.S. colleges and universities face federal investigations for shared ancestry discrimination under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the wake of anti-war and anti-Israel protests on campus.

kAmkDEC@?8mq&|!* {p}s$rp!tk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAm%96 4FCC6?E =2?5D42A6 😀 3F>AJ] %96 xDC26=w2>2D H2C 😀 ;FDE E96 =2E6DE 6I2>A=6 E92E 92D 82=G2?:K65 5:D4FDD:@? 2?5 5:DAFE6D 23@FE E96 =:>:ED @? 7C66 DA6649 😕 @FC 9:89=J A@=2C:K65 D@4:6EJ[ D2:5 y2?6 z:CE=6J[ 2 AC@76DD@C @7 >65:2 6E9:4D 2?5 =2H 2E E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |:??6D@E2D wF332C5 $49@@= @7 y@FC?2=:D> 2?5 |2DD r@>>F?:42E:@?]k^Am

kAmuC66 DA6649 25G@42E6D H@CCJ 23@FE F?:G6CD:EJ 25>:?:DEC2E@CD[ 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D @G6CD66:?8 AF3=:4 4@==686D 2?5 H62=E9J 5@?@CD DBF6=49:?8 DA6649 E96J 5@?E =:<6 :? E9:D 42D6[ G:6HD @? E96 H2C[ xDC26=[ !2=6DE:?6 2?5 &]$] A@=:4J]k^Am

kAm(92E H6C6 724:?8 ?@H 😀 E92E 8@G6C?>6?E @77:4:2=D DE2E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D[ DE2E6 =68:D=2E@CD 2C6 4@?E6>A=2E:?8 ECJ:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E @A:?:@?D H:E9 H9:49 E96J 5:D28C66] %9:D 😀 2 AC@3=6> 7@C 6G6CJ@?6[ z:CE=6J D2:5] ~?46 H6 @A6? E96 5@@C E@ 2==@H:?8 E96 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E6== FD H92E E9@F89ED 2C6?E 2446AE23=6[ H6 CF? E96 C:D< E92E[ :? E96 7FEFC6[ :562D H:E9 H9:49 H6 28C66 4@F=5 36 DFAAC6DD65[ 2D H6==]k^Am

kAmw2=6J v=F92?:49[ AC@8C2> @77:46C 7@C 42>AFD C:89ED 25G@424J 7@C E96 u@F?52E:@? 7@C x?5:G:5F2= #:89ED 2?5 tIAC6DD:@? Wux#tX[ 92D D66? 2? :?4C62D6 😕 42==D 7C@> DEF56?ED[ 724F=EJ 2?5 DE277 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ D:?46 E96 DE2CE @7 E96 w@=J {2?5 H2C]k^Am

kAm(6 2C6 D66:?8 6G6?ED 36:?8 42?46=65] (6 2C6 D66:?8 DEF56?E @C82?:K2E:@?D 36:?8 56492CE6C65] (6 2C6 D66:?8 DEF56?ED 2?5 724F=EJ >6>36CD 86EE:?8 5:D4:A=:?65 7@C D@4:2= >65:2 A@DED 7@C D@>6 4@>>6?ED >256 😕 4=2DD[ v=F92?:49 D2:5]k^Am

kAm$96 D2:5 ux#t 92D C646:G65 4@>A=2:?ED 24C@DD E96 4@?E6?E:@FD A@=:E:42= DA64ECF>] xE 😀 AC6EEJ 6BF2=] r@?D6CG2E:G6D 2?5 =:36C2=D H6 2C6 D66:?8 3@E9 @7 E96> 92G:?8 E96:C DA6649 C6DEC:4E65[ v=F92?:49 D2:5]k^Am

kAm$96 D2:5 E92E 92D :?4=F565 F?:G6CD:E:6D :>A@D:?8 9:89 :?DFC2?46 C6BF:C6>6?ED[ ECJ:?8 E@ >@G6 4@?EC@G6CD:2= 6G6?ED @?=:?6 @C E@ >@C6 C6>@E6 =@42E:@?D 2?5 4:E:?8 D64FC:EJ 4@?46C?D 😕 C6DEC:4E:?8 46CE2:? DA62<6CD 2?5 8C@FAD]k^Am

kAmz:CE=6J 2?5 v=F92?:49 C6:?7@C465 E96 :562 E92E AF3=:4 9:896C 65F42E:@? :?DE:EFE:@?D 2C6 6DA64:2==J 3@F?5 E@ u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D 2?5 >FDE 2G@:5 5:D4C:>:?2E:?8 282:?DE 46CE2:? G:6HA@:?ED] %92E :?4=F56D 92E6 DA6649 E92E 42? 36 5:D4@>7@CE:?8]k^Am

kAm|2?J A6@A=6 5@?E C62=:K6 E92E 92E6 DA6649 H9:49 5@6D?E 92G6 2 4=62C 567:?:E:@? 😀 AC@E64E65 F?56C E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E] %9:D 😀 G6CJ :>A@CE2?E[ 3642FD6[ 2D 2 86?6C2= CF=6[ C6DEC:4E:@?D @? DA6649 E92E 2C6 G:6HA@:?E32D65 2C6 5:D72G@C65 F?56C @FC 7C66 DA6649 ;FC:DACF56?46]k^Am

kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE 92D C64@8?:K65 E92E E96 8@G6C?>6?E 42??@E 5:4E2E6 H92E 😀 @CE9@5@I 😕 E9@F89E @C DA6649[ z:CE=6J D2:5]k^Am

kAm$A6649 E92E :?4:E6D G:@=6?46 2?5 DA64:7:4 E9C62ED[ 9@H6G6C[ 5@6D ?@E 6?;@J u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D]k^Am

American colleges have become places of anguish, with Jewish and other pro-Israel students condemning the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, while Muslim and progressive students are pressing for recognition of suffering by Palestinians in Gaza.

kAmkDEC@?8m$%&st}%$ (p}% %~ utt{ $putk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAm$9:C2 v@@5>2?[ D6?:@C 5:C64E@C @7 25G@424J 7@C ps{[ D2:5 AF3=:4 4@==686D 92G6 E96 =682= C:89E E@ C6DA@?D:3=J C68F=2E6 DA6649 2?5 E@ AC@E64E DEF56?ED 2?5 DE277 7C@> 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[ 92C2DD>6?E 2?5 9@DE:=6 65F42E:@?2= 6?G:C@?>6?ED F?56C %:E=6 'x @7 E96 `hec r:G:= #:89ED p4E]k^Am

kAm%96 8@G6C?>6?E 92D E96 C:89E E@ 92G6 E:>6[ A=246 2?5 >2??6C C6DEC:4E:@?D[ A6C>:EE:?8 C6BF:C6>6?ED[ E:>6 C6DEC:4E:@?D[ D96 D2:5] (6 H2?E E9@D6 E9:?8D 6?7@C465 6BF2==J]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? D2:5 6G6? AC@E64E65 DA6649 42? CF? :?E@ :DDF6D 😕 65F42E:@?2= D6EE:?8D C646:G:?8 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 F?56C %:E=6 'x] x E9:?< H6 7@C86E E92E E96C6 :D E96 A@DD:3:=:EJ E92E 6G6? AC@E64E65 DA6649 42? 4C62E6 2 9@DE:=6 6?G:C@?>6?E] x E9:?< E92ED :>A@CE2?E[ v@@5>2? D2:5]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? D2:5 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 2?5 DE277 92G6 G@:465 4@?46C?D 23@FE A6CD@?2= D276EJ 2E D49@@=D 2?5 65F42E:@?2= H@C 2?5 492=<:?8 :?G@=G:?8 DH2DE:<2D 2?5 @E96C 92E67F= DJ>3@=D 2?5 D=@82?D]k^Am

kAm~FC =682= 42== =:?6D E96JG6 8@EE6? 9F?5C65D @7 42==D 24C@DD F?:G6CD:E:6D[ D96 D2:5] $@>6 @7 E9@D6 >:89E C6DF=E 😕 =:E:82E:@?] r=2:>D 2C6 36:?8 7:=65 H:E9 E96 s~t]k^Am

kAmp &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 t5F42E:@? DA@<6DA6CD@? C676CC65 BF6DE:@?D 23@FE 2 A@DE~4E] f C:D6 :? 92C2DD>6?E %:E=6 'x 4@>A=2:?ED E@ 2 }@G6>36C AC6DD C6=62D6 😕 H9:49 E96 q:56? 25>:?:DEC2E:@? D2:5 :E H@F=5 DE2CE C6=62D:?8 E96 ?2>6D @7 :?DE:EFE:@?D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@? 7@C A@E6?E:2= 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? 32D65 @? D92C65 2?46DECJ]k^Am

kAm$:?46 E96 w2>2D 2EE24@C6 E92? c_ 4@==686D 2?5 F?:G6CD:E:6D E92E 2C6 36:?8 :?G6DE:82E65 7@C A@E6?E:2= D92C65 2?46DECJ 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?]k^Am

kAm%96 :?G6DE:82E:@? =:DE :?4=F56D D49@@=D H96C6 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 92G6 G@:465 D276EJ 4@?46C?D 5FC:?8 2?E:H2C AC@E6DED[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r@@A6C &?:@?[ r@C?6== &?:G6CD:EJ[ r@=F>3:2 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 }6H $49@@= 😕 }6H *@C<[ E96 F?:G6CD:E:6D @7 %2>A2 2?5 $@FE9 u=@C:52[ w2CG2C5 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED x?DE:EFE6 @7 %649?@=@8J]k^Am

kAm%96 s~t =:DE 2=D@ :?4=F56D @E96C xGJ {628F6 2?5 6=:E6 D49@@=D W:?4=F5:?8 *2=6[ $E2?7@C5[ y@9?D w@A<:?D 2?5 qC@H?X[ D6G6C2= q:8 %6? D49@@=D W:?4=F5:?8 |:49:82?[ ~9:@ $E2E6[ #FE86CD[ }@CE9H6DE6C?[ x?5:2?2q=@@>:?8E@?[ |:??6D@E2%H:? r:E:6D 2?5 (:D4@?D:?|25:D@?X[ 2D H6== 2D |@?E2?2 $E2E6 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 E96 F?:G6CD:E:6D @7 }@CE9 r2C@=:?2r92A6= w:== 2?5 (2D9:?8E@?]k^Am

kAmp ?F>36C @7 D49@@=D 4@?E24E65 7@C E9:D DE@CJ 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ C6BF6DED E@ 4@>>6?E 23@FE 9@H E96J 2C6 92?5=:?8 AC@E6DED[ 7C66 DA6649 2?5 D276EJ 4@?46C?D] ~77:4:2=D 2E ~9:@ $E2E6 2?5 (:D4@?D:?|25:D@? C676CC65 E@ E96:C DA6649 A@=:4:6D DFAA@CE:?8 2 7C66 6I492?86 @7 :562D 2?5 5:776C:?8 @A:?:@?D]k^Am

kAm(6 92G6 366? 8F:565 3J EH@ =@?8DE2?5:?8 AC:?4:A=6Di ~9:@ $E2E6 😀 4@>>:EE65 E@ 6?DFC:?8 7C665@> @7 DA6649 2?5 6IAC6DD:@? @? @FC 42>AFD[ 2?5 ~9:@ $E2E6 92D ?6G6C 2?5 H:== ?6G6C E@=6C2E6 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? @C 92C2DD>6?E @7 2?J@?6 32D65 @? E96:C C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D[ ?2E:@?2=:EJ @C :56?E:EJ] p==682E:@?D @7 E9C62ED[ 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? @C 92C2DD>6?E 2C6 :?G6DE:82E65 3J @FC ~77:46 @7 x?DE:EFE:@?2= tBF:EJ[ D2:5 q6? y@9?D@?[ 2? ~9:@ $E2E6 DA@<6DA6CD@?]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? H2?ED D49@@=D E@ 5@ >@C6 E@ >2<6 DFC6 DEF56?ED :DEC62E>6?E 2?5 E@ 36 >@C6 EC2?DA2C6?E 23@FE E96:C A@=:4:6D 2?5 A@DE ~4E] f 492?86D 27E6C E96 AC6D:56?ED @7 w2CG2C5[ |x% 2?5 E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 !6??DJ=G2?:2 42>6 F?56C 7:C6 7@C =F<6H2C> 2?DH6CD 5FC:?8 2 4@?8C6DD:@?2= 962C:?8 C6=2E65 E@ 86?@4:52= C96E@C:4]k^Am

kAm$EF56?ED H2?E E@ 766= D276[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

Jewish Rutgers University students and community members hold a vigil in support of Israel on Oct. 25, 2023, in New Brunswick, N.J..

kAmkDEC@?8m%wx$ x$ }t)% {t't{k^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmr@C6J $2J=@C[ C6D62C49 2?5 25G@424J 5:C64E@C 7@C rpx#[ 😀 G6CJ 4@?46C?65 E92E D@>6 @7 E96 24E:@?D 36:?8 E2<6? @? 4@==686 42>AFD6D 2C6 2:>65 2E DFAAC6DD:?8 AC@!2=6DE:?:2? G:6HA@:?ED]k^Am

kAm%9:D 😀 ?6IE =6G6=[ $2J=@C D2:5 @7 E96 D6?E:>6?ED 2?5 AFD96D 282:?DE AC@!2=6DE:?:2? 2?5 2?E:H2C G@:46D[ H9:49 92G6 46?E6C65 @? 4@==686 42>AFD6D] %96 E2C86E:?8 @7 DEF56?ED 2?5 A6@A=6 😕 E96:C H@C

kAm$2J=@C A@:?ED E@ 8C@FAD H9@ 92G6 AF3=:4:K65 E96 ?2>6D @7 DEF56?ED[ @C82?:K2E:@?D[ 724F=EJ 2?5 6>A=@J66D H9@ 92G6 G@:465 @AA@D:E:@? E@ E96 H2C 2?5 &]$] A@=:4:6D]k^Am

kAmx? E6C>D @7 E92E[ H6 92G6?E D66? 2?JE9:?8 =:<6 H92E H6 2C6 H:E?6DD:?8 C:89E ?@H[ $2J=@C D2:5]k^Am

kAm%9@D6 @? E96 @E96C D:56 @7 E96 :DDF6 4@?E6?5 D@>6 2?E:xDC26= C96E@C:4 92D 4C@DD65 E96 =:?6 :?E@ 2?E:D6>:E:D>]k^Am

kAmv=F92?:49 2?5 z:CE=6J 2=D@ H2?E 4@==686D E@ C6G:D:E 2?5[ 😕 D@>6 :?DE2?46D[ 5:E49 D@42==65 DA6649 4@56D 2?5 9@H D49@@=D 92?5=6 4@>A=2:?ED H:E9 2 7@4FD @? >2:?E2:?:?8 7C665@> @7 6IAC6DD:@?]k^Am

kAm%96J 2=D@ H@CCJ 23@FE H62=E9J 5@?@CD 6DA64:2==J 2E AC:G2E6 D49@@=D H9@ 2C6?E 2D 3@F?5 E@ E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 2D E96:C AF3=:4 4@F?E6CA2CED AC6DDFC:?8 25>:?:DEC2E@CD E@ 46?D@C DA6649 E96J 5@?E =:<6 27E6C E96 C6D:8?2E:@?D @7 E96 AC6D:56?ED @7 !6?? 2?5 w2CG2C5 27E6C E96:C 4@?8C6DD:@?2= E6DE:>@?J]k^Am

Pro-Palestinian protesters argue with a pro-Israel demonstrator during a protest at Columbia University in New York. Jewish students across the country worry about safety and a rise in antisemitism, while the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is concerned about universities squelching anti-war sentiments on campuses.

kAmkDEC@?8mp #xvw% %wp% $w~&{s qt $putv&p#stsk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmv~! =2H>2<6CD 2?5 8@G6C?@CD H9@ 92G6 AC6G:@FD=J 4@>A=2:?65 23@FE 4@?D6CG2E:G6 G@:46D 36:?8 46?D@C65 @? =:36C2= 42>AFD6D 92G6 AFD965 282:?DE 2?E:xDC26= AC@E6DED]k^Am

kAmx? u=@C:52[ v~! v@G] #@? s6$2?E:D 32??65 $EF56?ED 7@C yFDE:46 😕 !2=6DE:?6 W$y!X 2E AF3=:4 42>AFD6D 27E6C A@DE~4E] f AC@E6DED] w6 92D 2=D@ 6=:>:?2E65 DE2E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D 5:G6CD:EJ[ 6BF:EJ 2?5 :?4=FD:@? WstxX @77:46D 2?5 @G6C92F=65 E96 AC@8C6DD:G6 }6H r@==686 @7 u=@C:52]k^Am

kAm%96 p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? 2?5 @E96C 8C@FAD 2C6 492==6?8:?8 E96 5624E:G2E:@? @7 E96 AC@!2=6DE:?:2? 8C@FA @? 7C66 DA6649 8C@F?5D[ E9@F89 2 7656C2= ;F586 56?:65 E96:C C6BF6DE 7@C 2? :?;F?4E:@? 😕 E96 42D6 y2?] b`]k^Am

kAm}6H r@==686[ $y! 2?5 E96 pr{& 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ C6BF6DED 7@C 4@>>6?E]k^Am

kAmp 425C6 @7 v~! =2H>2<6CD :?4=F5:?8 s6$2?E:D 2?5 |@?E2?2 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= pFDE:? z?F5D6? 2=D@ H2?E 7@C6:8? 4@==686 DEF56?ED E@ A@E6?E:2==J =@D6 E96:C G:D2D 2?5 86E 56A@CE65 :7 E96J DFAA@CE w2>2D @C @E96C &]$]56D:8?2E65 E6CC@C 8C@FADk^Am

kAmt>:=66 r2?EC6==[ 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 5:C64E@C 7@C E96 |@?E2?2 2EE@C?6J 86?6C2=[ D2:5 DA6649 C:89ED D9@F=5 36 D2768F2C565[ 3FE 2=D@ AC@>:D65 E@ 6?7@C46 92E64C:>6 =2HD[ 2D ?66565]k^Am

kAmtG6CJ p>6C:42? 92D E96 C:89E E@ 7C66 DA6649 C682C5=6DD @7 E96:C 36=:67D[ 2 C:89E E92E D9@F=5 36 D2768F2C565] w@H6G6C[ 2DD2F=E 2?5 G:@=6?46 😕 |@?E2?2 H:== ?@E 36 E@=6C2E65] %96 |@?E2?2 s6A2CE>6?E @7 yFDE:46 H:== 5@ :ED A2CE E@ 6?DFC6 E92E DE2E6 =2HD[ :?4=F5:?8 92E64C:>6 =2HD[ 2C6 36:?8 7@==@H65[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

An anti-war protester interrupts President Joe Biden during a campaign event touting abortion rights on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024. College campuses have become epicenters for protests against U.S. (and Bidens) support for Israels war versus Hamas in Gaza.

Read more here:

America Divided Part II: Mideast war magnifies free speech challenges on college campuses - The Daily Reflector

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University – GW Today

What are the free speech rights of university students? That was the first question posed by moderator Jeffrey Rosen, GW Law professor and president of the National Constitution Center, to a panel of George Washington University faculty experts on the First Amendment.

The webinar, Free Speech v. Hate Speech: First Amendment Scholars Discuss Where to Draw the Line in the Context of Higher Education, was held as part of the universitys plan for strengthening the GW community in challenging times, with the goal of fostering civil conversations about complex issues and emphasizing university policies.

The incoming inaugural Burchfield Professor of First Amendment and Free Speech Law, Mary-Rose Papandrea, began by noting that the First Amendment applies to public and not private universities, but private universities often look to the First Amendment principles for guidance. Under the First Amendment, she explained, some categories of speech receive no First Amendment protection, such as incitement of unlawful conduct, threats of violence, or giving material support to terrorists. But offensive speech and bad words are not carved out from the First Amendment. In a public university setting, however, there is some leeway for penalizing speech that would be otherwise protected. She suggested classrooms provide the best example of this.

When I ask a student to tell me the holding of a case, I actually want the holding of the case, and there is a wrong answer, Papandrea said. And if the student doesnt give me the correct answer, that will result in a lower grade in the class. Outside in the town square you can engage in false speech, incorrect speech, or misrepresentations and cannot be, as a general matter, punished by the government.

Most of the tensions surrounding free speech on campuses today, she added, arise when universities attempt to regulate the speech of faculty and students outside of the classroom.

Universities are the quintessential marketplace of ideas, Papandrea said, and we should be really concerned when the university starts making viewpoint-based speech restrictions outside of the classroom.

First Amendment: Does everything go?

In the view of Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology and Civil Rights Law, free speech issues are clouded by unequal power relations, often resulting in protection of reckless speech for the majority but not for minorities. Franks proposes an alternative paradigm encouraging what she describes as fearless speech.

If we really want to talk about free speech, we actually need to get away from the First AmendmentI mean the kind of popularized version of the First Amendment which says everything goes, and you can never have any kind of intervention, Franks said.

People operating under this misconception, she added, argue that any kind of devaluation or nonplatforming constitutes censorship. That idea, she said, is pernicious.

When we think about what the First Amendment actually does, its not really telling us anything about free speech, Franks said. Its telling us about what the government cant do in certain contexts. And thats really useful to know, because the government has a lot of power that no individual has and because the kinds of measures it can take against you include the loss of your liberty. But I dont know that its such a good model for us as a private university. How much are we like a government? What we could be doing instead, and what I think successful universities do when they want to be marketplaces of ideas or spaces for intellectual, robust debate, is set standards. What are the good ideas? Whether an idea is controversial or noncontroversial is not the point.

Instead, Franks said, ideas should be well informed and argued eloquently. She argues in favor of a conscious curation of the best ideas that reflect the universitys values, expressed as persuasively as possible without threats of force or ad hominem attacks.

What is the kind of speech that a university could uniquely try to foster? she asked. What kind of space could it foster to become a forum where really difficult ideas get aired out in a way that is physically safe but also sophisticated? Im suggesting that we move toward fearless speech and critiques of current power structures, that we take notice of the fact that reality is a certain way. There are certain sensitivities to race and gender and class that we really need to have on our radar, if we want to make sure that people within the university space can speak equally.

Free speech at a private university

Dawn Nunziato, Pedas Family Professor of IP and Technology Law, agreed that the First Amendment is not necessarily the right one for every context.

At a private university like GW, we have the autonomy and the freedom and the duty to decide what kind of community we want to be, Nunziato said, and within certain bounds, what types of speech we want to protect and to not protect. Our speech policies are not governed by the First Amendment. So we dont need to protect hate speech in the same way that the First Amendment protects hate speech. We could draw the line very differently. And there are reasons why we should, and we should be very thoughtful about how we draw the line. We may choose to value inclusivity and belonging over the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nunziato noted, GW has a responsibility to provide an educational environment free of discrimination.

Robust discussion and respectful listening

The panels discussion touched on the recent congressional hearings at which the presidents of three elite universities were criticized for saying that whether speech could be considered hate speech depends on context.

After pointing out that she didnt view it as incorrect to say that the answer to questions of free speech v. hate speech can depend on context, Papandrea noted examples of speech that should be protected, such as an antisemitic line spoken by a character in a play meant to condemn antisemitism. The same line spoken by a student marching across campus could be viewed as creating a hostile environment.

Franks, too, was sympathetic to the trio of university presidents, who may have been reacting to the charge that universities are a woke paradise for snowflakes who require trigger warnings.

The most upsetting thing about the spectacle is not any of those presidents answers, Franks said. It was the fact that the spectacle was happening at alla real invocation and revitalization of a McCarthyesque kind of moment, with legislators who have made it clear that antisemitism and white supremacy are things that they either dont have a problem with or actively support. It was a really grotesque spectacle, she added, a bad faith attempt to attack diversity.

If we object to the First Amendments protection of vile speech in the public square, Nunziato said, we take that up with the Supreme Court, which defines the First Amendments protections. But whether vile speech should be restricted in the university environment is a different question, she added.

Balancing robust, sometimes caustic and heated discussion on issues of public importance against the legal obligations that we have to protect our community members from discriminatory harassment, Nunziato said, is an important part of what we do as a university.

Being part of a university community, Nunziato said, presents a unique opportunity to interact more thoughtfully than people do on social media.

Our University Yard and the quad are spaces where there may be protesters and counter-protesters, but we can be there together, Nunziato said, and engage in speech and counterspeech, unlike in some of the online environments where we have egregious problems of information silos and people going down rabbit holes. In the university environment, were all on our phones and on social media, but were also in spaces where we can engage with one another. Maybe were raising our voices, but we can listen to one another. One of the principles in our code of conduct is that members of the university community are urged to hear all sides of controversial issues.

In closing remarks, Rosen quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who argued that the correct remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

The concluding webinar, Rosen said, was a model of the kind of robust discussion and respectful listening that Brandeis advocated.

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University - GW Today

Why Online Free Speech Is Now Up to the Supreme Court – Bloomberg

Conspiracy theories, election lies and Covid misinformation before the 2020 US presidential election led social media companies to implement rules policing online speech and suspending some users including former President Donald Trump. That practice, known as content moderation, will be put to the test after two Republican-led states, Florida and Texas, passed laws in 2021 to stop what they believed were policies censoring conservatives. The fate of those social media laws now rests with the US Supreme Court, which could fundamentally reshape how platforms handle speech online in the run-up to the 2024 election and beyond.

The central issue is whether the laws violate the free speech rights of social media platforms by limiting the companies editorial control. The laws apply to companies including Meta Platforms Inc.s Facebook, Alphabet Inc.s Google, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and Reddit Inc. The justices will scrutinize provisions of the new laws that require the companies to carry content that violates their internal guidelines and to provide a rationale to users whose posts are taken down.

View original post here:

Why Online Free Speech Is Now Up to the Supreme Court - Bloomberg

An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy – Tufts Now

You devote the first part of the book to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his journey into skepticism about universal morality. To whom is that relevant today?

Many of todays students have a keen thirst for social justice, which I admire. When Holmes was their age, he shared that thirst, dropping out of college to enlist in the Union Army in a war against slavery, in which he was nearly killed several times.

He became very skeptical of people who believe they have unique access to universal, absolute truth, who view their adversaries as evil incarnate. That, he believed, leads ultimately to violence.

All of us today need to approach public debate with a bit of humility, recognizing that none of us is infallible and that rigid moral certitude leads down a dangerous path.

We know from centuries of experience, in many countries, that censorship inevitably backfires. It discredits the censors, who are seen as patronizing elites. It demeans listeners who are told they cant handle the truth. It makes martyrs and heroes out of the censored and drives their speech underground where its harder to rebut.

Suffragettes, civil rights leaders, and LGBTQ+ activists all have relied on free speech to get their messages out. Censorship alienates the public, generates distrust, fosters social division, and sparks political instability.

Its not that some speech isnt harmfulits that trying to suppress it causes greater harm.

Not all hateful speech is protected. Incitement to violence, fighting words, defamation, and true threats are all often hateful yet that speech is not protected. But other hateful speech is protected, for several reasons.

Hatred is a viewpoint. Its for the individual to think and feel as he or she wishes; its only when the individual crosses the line between thought and action to incite violence or defame or threaten someone that the state can intervene.

Hate speech laws are also invariably vague and overbroad, leading to arbitrary and abusive enforcement. In the real world, speech rarely gets punished because it hurts dominant majorities. It gets punished because it hurts disadvantaged minorities.

The ultimate problem with banning falsehoods is that to do so youd need an official Ministry of Truth, which could come up with an endless list of officially banned falsehoods. Not only would that list inevitably be self-serving, but it could be wrong.

Even when it comes to clear falsehoods, there are reasons to leave them up. [Former President Donald] Trump claimed, for example, that the size of the crowd at his inauguration was larger than [former President Barack] Obamas, which was indisputably false. But the statement had the effect of calling into question not only Trumps veracity but also his mental soundness, which is important for voters to assess.

They were wrong to apply a norm of international human rights law in banning hima supposed prohibition against glorifying violence. Thats a vague, overly broad standard that can pick up everything from praising Medal of Honor winners to producing Top Gun.

Were dealing here with an American president speaking from the White House to the American people, so I say the proper standard should have been the U.S. First Amendment and whether Trump intended to incite imminent violence and whether that violence was likely. Under that test, I think its a close case.

Justice Louis Brandeis [who served on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939] said that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

If someone counsels drinking bleach to cure COVID, the remedy is not to suppress itits to point out why thats wrong. But over and over, the governments remedy for speech it didnt like was to strongarm social media platforms to take it down.

The government wouldnt have lost so much credibility if it had only said, This is our best guess based on available evidence. Instead, it spoke ex cathedra on masks, lockdowns, school closings, vaccine efficacy, infection rates, myocarditis, social distancing, you name itclaims that often turned out to be untenableand then it bullied the platforms to censor prominent experts who took issue with its misinformation.

The remedy for falsehoods is more speech, not enforced silence. If someone thinks a social media post contains altered imagery or audio, the initial solution is simply to say that and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.

Obviously counter-speech isnt always the answer: You still run into eleventh-hour deep fakes that theres no time to rebut. People do have privacy rights and interference with elections undercuts democracy.

The trick is to write legislation that catches malign fakery but doesnt also pick up satire and humor that is obviously bogus. Thats not easy. Well-intended but sloppy laws often trigger serious unintended consequences.

See the original post here:

An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy - Tufts Now

Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of GOP states in major internet free speech case – Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical of arguments Monday by the states of Florida and Texas that they are justified in regulating social media content moderation in a landmark case with major implications for speech on the internet.

The court heard oral arguments for two major speech-related cases on Monday: NetChoice v. Moody and NetChoice v. Paxton. The technology industry group NetChoice sued the states of Texas and Florida over laws imposed by Republicans meant to hold social media platforms accountable for banning users based on viewpoint.

Floridas law would allow residents to take legal action and the state to fine companies if they remove political candidates from social media platforms. The Texas law would require platforms to be content-neutral and allow the states attorney general and residents to sue platforms for removing content or blocking accounts. The court pressed the states to provide a justification for restricting speech. The justices, though, also asked questions aimed at determining the extent of Big Techs power over speech on the internet.

NetChoice v. Moody

Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker was the first to appear before the court to argue in NetChoice v. Moody. He said that platforms had to be neutral when it comes to content moderation and that the law merely regulates the conduct of a platform rather than the content. He also alleged that platforms such as Facebook and Google need to be treated as common carriers. Being defined as a common carrier, a term initially used for public transportation services and utilities but expanded to include radio stations and telephone services, would subject platforms to additional restrictions, including anti-discrimination regulations.

Multiple members of the court appear skeptical of Floridas law, noting that it was very broad and affected more platforms than some claimed it would. [Floridas law is] covering almost everything, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The one thing I know about the internet is that its variety is infinite.

Justice Samuel Alito noted there is also no list of platforms covered by Floridas statutes. This broadness makes it challenging to deal with the cases particulars, Justice Clarence Thomas argued. Were not talking about anything specific, Thomas said. Now were just speculating as to what the law means. The e-commerce platform Etsy was brought up multiple times by the court as an example of a platform that would be inadvertently affected by Floridas law.

Paul Clement, NetChoices representative, responded in his arguments by saying that Floridas law violated the First Amendment multiple times over. He also tried to create a distinction between content moderation decisions made by government entities versus private entities. There are things that if the government does, its a First Amendment problem, and if a private speaker does it, we recognize that as protected activity, Clement argued.

The Biden administrations Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar seemed to affirm Clements arguments, arguing in favor of NetChoice and limiting Floridas power over speech.

Netchoice v. Paxton

The court reconvened a short time after to hear arguments about Texass law. Clement returned to represent NetChoice, arguing that Texass law requiring neutrality on the platform would make social media less attractive to users and advertisers since it would require platforms to host both anti-suicide and pro-suicide content as well as pro-Semitic and antisemitic content.

He also emphasized to the justices that a social media company was more like a parade or newspaper than a common carrier, trying to focus on the state of speech on the platform.

Aaron Nielson, Texass solicitor general, emphasized that social media platforms are a lot like telegraphs and that this nature should be why the state should restrict the sorts of censorship that platforms allow.

Nielson was questioned multiple times about how the state would handle its viewpoint-neutral emphasis. When asked how platforms could regulate viewpoint-neutral approaches to subjects such as terrorism, Nielson said platforms could just remove it. Instead of saying that you can have anti-al Qaeda but not the pro-al Qaeda, if you just want to say, Nobody is talking about al Qaeda here, they can turn that off, Nielson argued.

Court conclusions

The court appeared divided on the extent to which content moderation was allowed. On one hand, they saw government-enforced moderation as questionable, mainly if it focused on content. On the other hand, they criticized the power exerted by Big Tech companies. Justice Neil Gorsuch brought up the example of private messaging services such as Gmail deciding to delete communications due to them violating certain viewpoint communications, a matter that multiple justices brought up before Clement.

The court appeared bothered by the two cases being facial challenges, a legal term for cases in which a party claims that a specific law is unconstitutional and should be voided. This approach offers little flexibility for the Supreme Court since the court could not limit the laws effect to only a specific form of speech but leave other parts of the law intact.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Section 230, a part of the Communications Decency Act that protects platforms from being held accountable for content posted by third parties, was also brought up by the justices multiple times. The justices tried to weigh how that law would interact with the states attempts to block speech, as well as NetChoices arguments in favor of the platforms. Thomas argued that NetChoices argument that platforms had editorial control undermined its defense under Section 230.

The court is expected to release a decision on both cases sometime before July. The court will only be ruling on the preliminary injunction, which means that the decision will come quicker than other cases and that the decision will decide if the lower courts blocking of the laws will be upheld or overturned.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of GOP states in major internet free speech case - Washington Examiner

Supreme Court Will Decide What Free Speech Means on Social Media – Gizmodo

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases on Monday that could set new precedents around free speech on social media platforms. The cases challenge two similar laws from Florida and Texas, respectively, which aim to reduce Silicon Valley censorship on social media, much like Elon Musk has done at X in the last year.

Twitter Verification is a Hot Mess

After four hours of opening arguments, Supreme Court Justices seemed unlikely to completely strike down Texas and Floridas laws, according to Bloomberg. Justice Clarence Thomas said social media companies were engaging in censorship. However, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether social media platforms are really a public square. If not, they wouldnt fall under the First Amendments protections.

At one point, the lawyer representing Texas shouted out, Sir, this is a Wendys. He was trying to prove a point about public squares and free speech, but it didnt make much sense.

The cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, both label social media platforms as a digital public square and would give states a say in how content is moderated. Both laws are concerned with conservative voices being silenced on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and other social media platforms, potentially infringing on the First Amendment.

Silencing conservative views is un-American, its un-Texan and its about to be illegal, said Texas Governor Greg Abbott on X in 2021, announcing one of the laws the Supreme Court is debating on Monday.

If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable, said Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in a 2021 press release, announcing his new law.

NetChoice, a coalition of techs biggest players, argues that these state laws infringe on a social media companys right to free speech. The cases have made their way to the United States highest court, and a decision could permanently change social media.

The laws could limit Facebooks ability to censor pro-Nazi content on its platform, for example. Social media companies have long been able to dictate what kind of content appears on their platform, but the topic has taken center stage in the last year. Musks X lost major advertisers following a rise in white supremacist content that appeared next to legacy brands, such as IBM and Apple.

NetChoice argues that social media networks are like newspapers, and they have a right to choose what appears on their pages, litigator Chris Marchese told The Verge. The New York Times is not required to let Donald Trump write an 0p-ed under the First Amendment, and NetChoice argues the same goes for social media.

NetChoices members include Google, Meta, TikTok, X, Amazon, Airbnb, and other Silicon Valley staples beyond social media platforms. The association was founded in 2001 to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.

Social and political issues have consumed technology companies in recent months. Googles new AI chatbot Gemini was accused of being racist against white people last week. In January, Mark Zuckerberg, sitting before Senate leaders, apologized to a room of parents who said Instagram contributed to their childrens suicides or exploitation.

Both of these laws were created shortly after Twitter, now X, banned Donald Trump in 2021. Since then, Musk has completely revamped the platform into a free speech absolutist site. Similar to Governors Abbot and DeSantis, Musk is also highly concerned with so-called liberal censorship on social media.

The Supreme Courts decision on these cases could have a meaningful impact on how controversy and discourse play out on social media. Congress has faced criticism for its limited role in regulating social media companies in the last two decades, but this decision could finally set some ground rules. Its unclear which way the Court will lean on these cases, as the issues have little precedent.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court Will Decide What Free Speech Means on Social Media - Gizmodo

Supreme Court hearing arguments whether social media platforms have right to restrict free speech – WFAA.com

More Videos

Next up in 5

Example video title will go here for this video

Next up in 5

Example video title will go here for this video

Social media sites argue they're like newspapers and can make editorial judgments, but some states say otherwise.

Author: wfaa.com

Published: 10:28 PM CST February 26, 2024

Updated: 10:28 PM CST February 26, 2024

Go here to read the rest:

Supreme Court hearing arguments whether social media platforms have right to restrict free speech - WFAA.com

The Ally, a Play About Israel and Free Speech, Tackles Big Issues – The New York Times

Before his audition for The Ally, a new play by Itamar Moses, the actor Michael Khalid Karadsheh printed out the monologue that his character, Farid, a Palestinian student at an American university, would give in the second act.

The speech cites both the Mideast conflicts specific history and Farids personal testimony of, he says, the experience of moving through the world as the threat of violence incarnate. Karadsheh who booked the part was bowled over.

I dont think anyone has said these words about Palestine on a stage in New York in such a clear, concise, beautiful, poetic way, said Karadsheh, whose parents are from Jordan and who has ancestors who were from Birzeit in the West Bank.

Farids speech sits alongside others, though, in Mosess play: one delivered by an observant Jew branding much criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another by a Black lawyer connecting Israels policies toward Palestinians to police brutality in the United States; another by a Korean American bemoaning the mainstreams overlooking of East Asians. These speeches are invariably answered by rebuttals, which are answered by their own counter-rebuttals, all by characters who feel they have skin in the game.

In other words, The Ally, which opens Tuesday at the Public Theater in a production directed by Lila Neugebauer and starring Josh Radnor (How I Met Your Mother), is a not abstract and none too brief chronicle of our times, a minestrone of hot-button issues: Israelis and Palestinians, racism and antisemitism, free speech and campus politics, housing and gentrification, the excesses of progressivism even the tenuous employment of adjunct professors.

The rest is here:

The Ally, a Play About Israel and Free Speech, Tackles Big Issues - The New York Times

Opinion | America Has a Free Speech Problem – The New York Times

At the same time, all Americans should be deeply concerned about an avalanche of legislation passed by Republican-controlled legislatures around the country that gags discussion of certain topics and clearly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter of the law.

It goes far beyond conservative states yanking books about race and sex from public school libraries. Since 2021 in 40 state legislatures, 175 bills have been introduced or prefiled that target what teachers can say and what students can learn, often with severe penalties. Of those, 13 have become law in 11 states, and 106 are still under consideration. All told, 99 bills currently target K-12 public schools, 44 target higher education, and 59 include punishment for violators, according to a running tally kept by PEN America. In some instances, the proposed bills failed to become law. In other cases, the courts should declare them unconstitutional.

These bills include Floridas Dont Say Gay bill, which would restrict what teachers and students can talk about and allows for parents to file lawsuits. If the law goes into force, watch for lawsuits against schools that restrict the free speech rights of students to discuss things like sexuality, established by earlier Supreme Court rulings.

The new gag laws coincide with a similar barrage of bills that ostensibly target critical race theory, an idea that has percolated down from law schools to the broader public in recent years as a way to understand the pervasiveness of racism. The moral panic around critical race theory has morphed into a vast effort to restrict discussions of race, sex, American history and other topics that conservatives say are divisive. Several states have now passed these gag laws restricting what can be said in public schools, colleges and universities, and state agencies and institutions.

In passing laws that restrict speech, conservatives have adopted the language of harm that some liberals used in the past to restrict speech the idea that speech itself can cause an unacceptable harm, which has led to a proliferation of campus speech codes and the use of trigger warnings in college classrooms.

Now conservatives have used the idea of harmful speech to their own ends: An anti-critical-race-theory law in Tennessee passed last year, for instance, prohibits promoting the concept that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individuals race or sex a measure aimed at avoiding the distress that students might feel when learning about racist or misogynist elements of American history. (Unmentioned, of course, is the potential discomfort felt by students who are fed a whitewashed version of American history.)

Link:

Opinion | America Has a Free Speech Problem - The New York Times

xkcd: Free Speech

xkcd: Free SpeechPreorder What If? 2 (all US preorders eligible) and enter our contest for a chance to win a dedicated comic and What If blog post!

Free Speech

[[A person speaking to the reader.]]Person: Public Service Announcehment: The *right to free speech* means the government can't arrest you for what you say.[[Close-up on person's face.]]Person: It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, - or host you while you share it.[[Back to full figure.]]Person: The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.[[Close-up.]]Person: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.[[Person, holding palm upward.]]Person: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,[[A door that is ajar.]]Person: And they're showing you the door.{{Title text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.}}

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.

Go here to read the rest:

xkcd: Free Speech

Is Alex Jones’ trial about free speech rights? | AP News

CHICAGO (AP) Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words Save the 1st scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.

The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

Jones took the stand Tuesday and Wednesday in his own defense.

Heres a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:

ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?

They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isnt protected speech.

Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.

Jones trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.

WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.

That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.

I dont know why they didnt cooperate, said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York Universitys First Amendment Watch. It is just really peculiar. ... Its so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.

It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.

It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied, said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesnt protect defamatory speech.

Speech is free, he said, but lies you have to pay for.

Jones lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.

If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebodys feelings, we are not in America anymore, he said.

Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.

WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly typically via the media and purporting that its true. An opinion cant be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someones reputation.

The parents suing Jones say his lies about their childs death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones followers.

IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?

Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.

In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove actual malice, that a false statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?

Their lawyers say they clearly arent in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.

The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.

Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.

WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?

The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.

Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.

He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.

CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIALS OUTCOME?

Indirectly, yes.

Jones cant argue that hes not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

Jurors could say (Jones defamatory statements) is actually something we dont want to punish very hard, said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.

COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.

But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.

It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook, said Solomon. Thats not opinion. It is a fact. Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, I think Alex Jones would still lose, he said.

But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.

I wouldnt discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed, he said. Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fools errand.

MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?

Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate, the ruling said.

But it and the Jones case have key differences.

They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one persons reputation Goldberg said.

He added: Id be shocked if (Jones) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.

___

For more of the APs coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings

More:

Is Alex Jones' trial about free speech rights? | AP News

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLUs mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organizations work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendments protections remain robust in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. Thats because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if theyre going to be preserved for everyone.

Some examples of our free speech work from recent years include:

See the original post here:

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk

Another day, another Elon Musk feud on Twitter — except now, he's the owner of the social network, and he's beefing with AOC.

Latest Feud

Another day, another Elon Musk feud on Twitter — except now, he's the owner of the social network, and he's beefing with a sitting member of Congress.

The whole thing started innocently enough earlier this week, when firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY, and better known by her initials, "AOC") subtweeted the website's new owner.

"Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that 'free speech' is actually a $8/mo subscription plan," the New York Democratic Socialist tweeted in a post that, upon Futurism's perusal, appeared to load only half the time.

Sweat Equity

Not one to be shown up, Musk later posted a screenshot of an AOC-branded sweatshirt from the congressperson's website, with its $58 price tag circled and an emoji belying the billionaire's alleged affront at the price.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez said she was proud her sweatshirts were made by union labor, and that the proceeds from their sales were going to fund educational support for needy kids. She later dug in further, noting that her account was "conveniently" not working and joking that Musk couldn't buy his way "out of insecurity."

Yo @elonmusk while I have your attention, why should people pay $8 just for their app to get bricked when they say something you don’t like?

This is what my app has looked like ever since my tweet upset you yesterday. What’s good? Doesn’t seem very free speechy to me ? pic.twitter.com/e3hcZ7T9up

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 3, 2022

Bricked

To be clear, any suggestion that Musk personally had anything to do with any Twitter glitches on AOC's part would seem ludicrously petty. But then again, this is a guy who once hired a private detective to investigate a random critic.

Occam's razor, though, suggests that it was probably AOC's mega-viral tweet that broke the site's notoriously dodgy infrastructure. Of course, that's not a ringing endorsement of the site that Musk just acquired for the colossal sum of $44 billion.

More on Twitter: Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

The post AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk appeared first on Futurism.

The rest is here:

AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk

On book bans and free speech | Penn Today – Penn Today

How are book bans connected to free speech?

Those who are banning or limiting access to books often try to ensure that people dont think in certain ways, and that they dont speak in certain ways, or about certain topics. Banning books is an effort to make sure that difficult topics dont come up, especially in schools. This is an aspect of a broader political and cultural struggle over who belongs, or what values prevail in American society.

In your view, why are book bans and challenges increasing now?

The issue of book banning within the context of the broader culture wars has two different dimensions. One is the electoral, partisan, political-power-play aspect: Its a way to get peoples attention, to get people riled up and angry, to get them to pay more attention to politics and come out to vote. Books, curricula, teachers, schools, these are everywhere in every community. Close to 90% of American kids go to public school. So, if you find something in school that really angers people, is upsetting, its easy to get attention. The other aspect is more substantive, and that is the struggle to define the boundaries of the political community in America. In other words, who belongs? Whose voices should be heard? And today again the two most salient aspects of this are race, along with gender and sexuality; these are the main topics of books that are being questioned or pulled out of the libraries in different ways, being censored, being cancelled.

The struggle over race is a really a response, or a push back, to the racial justice wave that we have seen after the murder of George Floyd two years ago. I think the growing perception around the country is that a broad coalition of people who were very angry, who were awakened to aspects of racial injustice that maybe they were unaware of, or just didnt pay attention to, or previously didnt care too much about, especially non-Black people, this broad coalition joined with Black Americans and was looking to schools and to cultural artifacts like books to sustain this attention and commitment to preventing these injustices from happening. Curricula and books and schools and teachers were a way to sustain this effort, to say: We cant go on like this, we have to change the way that certain institutions, like the police, are treating Black people, but also more broadly the racial injustice seen for a very long time in this country. An effort to say, Lets use this moment to train teachers, to expose children to these issues, to make sure that we are making a difference here. Book banning is a backlash to that movement.

And the backlash is similar regarding sexuality and gender expression. We have seen the legal recognition of marriage equality. We are seeing the proliferation of books and materials in classrooms and libraries in celebration of Pride Month, and the greater visibility and cultural acceptance of transgender, and nonbinary, and diverse-gender-expression individuals in books and movies and society. We are seeing more recognition of equal rights, or the demand for equal rights and equal representation, of individuals with diverse forms of gender expression and diverse identities in the domain of gender and sexuality.

Book banning is a pushback against these efforts to expand our vision of our community, to try to entrench and limit again the scope of what is appropriate and what is desirable.

What is next?

I assume this struggle will continue at the local and national levels, especially in schools. Books in schools and in libraries are just easier to regulate. Its harder to regulate which characters you have on a Netflix show, but its pretty easy, relatively speaking, to elect people to state and local government, to school boards, who say, for example, These books are corruptive, or These are not age-appropriate, or We are reviewing these books, and creating processes for approving books that end up impoverishing libraries and curricular material in the presentation of diverse people. Which obviously is a disconcerting, because people have diverse identities, and theyre here, in our neighborhoods and classrooms, theyre not going anywhere, so trying to erase them from our cultural materials, from a book, from our teaching materials, does nothing to make them disappear. In reality, it makes them hide. It makes them shameful and uncomfortable and feel rejected. The book bans are telling them that they are not accepted as equal members of our community. I am encouraged by the efforts at the local and national levels to organize and to push back against book bans.

What is the effect of these book bans?

My worry is that at least in the areas where these efforts gain ground, you will see people who are not aligned with this conservative vision of appropriate behavior, of being proper and respectable people, just not finding room for themselves. You will see people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, gay and trans people, recognize that some prominent members of their community would prefer that they not be there. I think thats a terrible message to send to anyone, and definitely to young children.

This is not new to LGBTQ folks, who are being pushed back into the closet through the mechanism of erasing their presence in the public domain with the message: You shouldnt be out as an individual, and We shouldnt encourage you to be out by representing you positively in a book, or a TV show, or a film.

Regarding the racial issue, its a little different. Those who are seeking to ban books about racial history and relations, about injustice or inequality, are trying to minimize both the history of slavery and discussion on injustices today. Its an effort to represent history since the Civil Rights movement as having fixed any issues Black Americans face. It is an effort to cleanse the public discourse from references to unpleasant, uncomfortable truths, about American history and current reality, a discussion that is deemed uncomfortable for white people, and in particular white children. This effort, which is represented by banning books, for example about Martin Luther King Junior or Ruby Bridges, is really at the heart of book banning. I dont think thats a good goal for educators. Complex, complicated, age-appropriate conversations are hard, but the fact that its hard does not means that it needs to be scrubbed away. Teachers need to be supported in having these conversations, and books are a great aid for that.

Do book bans really make much of a difference, with access to just about anything via cell phone or computer?

What you read at school is very nice and good and important, but its definitely not the main avenue through which you get your information, and your understanding of your society. Of course, a lot of the same people who are banning books are also trying to regulate social media and the Internet. So, while the effort to censor is not focused only on books, I am very concerned about the limitations on books, I think about children and young people who live in less-affluent areas, or where theres less diversity, and where you don't always have broadband, and not every kid has an iPhone in their pocket. What do you do if youre the one Muslim kid in your school? What do you do if you are 13 and think that you are gay?

I also worry culturally about the message that were sending, because even if you can get information through your phone, the book ban lets you know that those in your communitymaybe your own teachers or elected officialssee these aspects of your reality and identity as something to be ashamed of, to be embarrassed about, to be silent about, something that doesnt belong. Kids get this message, which is both personally difficult and socially chilling.

How can higher education be involved?

Truth and inclusion should, in my view, serve as the guiding principles for organizing the public discourse around difficult topics.

We need tools for assessing the effort to cancel or silence different forms of expression, through banning books and other means. What is a reasonable argument about a book being inappropriate for a classroom? Can we agree about criteria for selecting books and teaching materials? Truth and inclusion are the two main dimensions of assessing the arguments. One, we need to refer to evidence, as accepted by relevant studies, to assess what should or should not be a part of our teaching materials. The second is a question of inclusion: We need to ensure that people who are within our community can properly see themselves as belonging, as positively represented. How do you create equal standing for everyone who lives here, and ensure that they have their voices heard?

Institutions of higher education are important for developing evidenced-based tools for assessment. They can also help advocate for using truth and inclusion as the guiding principles for learning in K-12 schools. Similar struggles are taking place on college campuses, and the culture wars over the boundaries of speech are familiar to us. Higher education is already setting the expectations for what children should learn in school, through our admissions policies and what we expect high school graduates to know. We should support schools by calling for inclusive learning environments, reliance on evidence-based decisions about teaching materials, and above all, free thought and free inquiry.

Original post:

On book bans and free speech | Penn Today - Penn Today

To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must Stop their Overreach – The Ripon Society

by DAVID KEATING

Assaults on the culture of free speech grow by the day. Unfortunately, much of the assault is coming from the major social media platforms.

The power of our democracy and the genius of our First Amendment is our recognition that no single authority can dictate what is true. We work out our disagreements through speech, publishing, and organizing into groups.

For centuries, reaching others with our views was difficult work, and in many respects it still is. But thanks to social media, most Americans can publish anything and theoretically reach millions of fellow citizens and even much of the world.

As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, social media platforms for many are the principal sources for speaking and listening in the modern public square, where Americans share vital information and express their opinions.

Social media allowed more Americans to engage in public speech than ever before, but like past revolutions in communications technology, it also triggered a backlash. Politicians, media outlets, or activists increasingly pressure companies to censor speech they deem false or misleading, or simply oppose. Lately, much of this speech concerns issues related to elections and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Certainly, you can find false claims about both topics online (and off) with ease. Yet the platforms judgments are far from infallible, and their heavy hand threatens to stifle important debates about unsettled issues. In fact, this has already happened.

Early in the pandemic, Facebook and YouTube censored claims that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab leak in China, a theory that remains plausible to this day. And, of course, Twitter and Facebook restricted the New York Posts reporting about emails on Hunter Bidens laptop in the leadup to the 2020 election, claiming they were the product of foreign misinformation. After the election, the emails proved to be authentic.

Many Democrats have encouraged this trend towards censorship. Recall that then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki urged faster action against harmful posts and suspension of accounts across all platforms. The Biden Administration created the so-called Disinformation Governance Board before disbanding it in response to public outrage.

Many Republicans say they oppose censorship but want to repeal Section 230, which immunizes social media companies from liability for posts by users. That would likely result in even more censorship from platforms eager to avoid costly litigation. It would also make it effectively impossible for new social media companies to take down the incumbents.

What to do?

Lets stipulate that there are no easy answers. But many of the actions taken now pose real threats to free speech while doing little to stop misinformation and may enable more of it.

Some of the wealthiest corporations in the world operate social media sites, and their mission is to maximize profits. Getting on the wrong side of government officials is bad for business. This creates terrible incentives for the platforms to censor based on the views of the party in power.

Politicians who attempt to influence platforms speech policies are a menace to free speech. Platforms should focus on empowering their users, not their critics or the government, to control what content they see.

The government has a role to play in protecting free speech on the internet. We can create ethics laws and rules preventing government officials from using threats against platforms to get them to censor. And we should consider creating a legal defense against government enforcement actions against social media platforms if the government initiates action based on its interest in retaliating against a platforms refusal to censor or silence itself or its users.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements.

We also need more information on how the platforms use algorithms to promote and suppress content. Right now, all we get are random information dumps from whistleblowers. If no one knows how social medias black box algorithms are working and failing, how can we come up with sensible government policies?

Ultimately, the solution must come from the platforms themselves. They should return to the more speech-friendly mindset embraced before 2016. Taking on the role of a private sector Ministry of Truth has been a disaster for their reputations with no clear benefit to the public. And it is especially dangerous given the threats wielded by government officials against the platforms.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements. The technology that we use to express ourselves has changed many times, from the printing press to the telegraph to radio and television and now, to social media. The underlying principles of the First Amendment will always stand the test of time.

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, DC.

See the original post here:

To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must Stop their Overreach - The Ripon Society