12345...102030...


Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? – TribLIVE

Freedom of speech is a frustrating thing to embrace.

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, said biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall of Voltaire, paraphrasing his work.

Voltaire may have been a French philosopher, but that do-or-die attitude toward free speech is one that is frequently ascribed to patriots and Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately, when it comes to real-life free speech, people are much more concerned with their rights and can be dismissive of their neighbors freedoms.

Thats how we get book bans and pushes for eliminating a class or a play in our public schools something that is being seen right now from those on the conservative side.

But it is definitely not an exclusively right-wing behavior. If you want to see it play out on the left, look to universities.

A Change.org petition signed by more than 11,000 people asked the University of Pittsburgh be held accountable in protecting LGBTQ individuals. A university should be responsible for keeping its students, staff, faculty and visitors safe from abuse and unfairness.

At issue, however, was a slate of speakers this spring. The petition called the three events a platform of hate and transphobia. Two appearances by Riley Gaines and Cabot Phillips were sponsored by the Pitt chapter of the conservative student group Turning Point USA. The universitys College Republicans and the International Studies Institute coordinated a debate with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles.

The issue of gender identity and expression is loaded and volatile. The speakers in question were going to provoke opposition. But does that mean they shouldnt speak?

The Knowles event Tuesday prompted what the university described as a public safety emergency. There was an incendiary device. A dummy with Knowles face was burned in the street. This is no way to counter an argument.

College students are often adamant about free thinking and open minds. They need to realize an exchange of ideas has to involve everyone having a chance to speak even if you dont agree.

For one thing, minds are never changed by a refusal to communicate. Second, if you dont want to hear a speaker, thats a reason for you not to attend the speech. It doesnt mean you get to prevent other people from hearing it. Thats always the point made with book bans. Dont like it? Dont read it.

But stopping a message should not degenerate to violence.

Penn State had that happen in October when an event with Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes was canceled at the last minute. Things turned ugly quickly.

Penn State has now canceled two April events by controversial speakers self-titled troll Alex Stein and cultural critic James Lindsay. Both were done very differently this time. They werent disrupted by protesters but by scheduling conflicts over venues and dates. And thats how it should be.

The best way to show that a speaker doesnt represent the students as many protesters have said is for the students to decide for themselves. Thats free speech.

Read the original here:

Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? - TribLIVE

Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature – The Dallas Morning News

The free speech of all Americans is protected by the First Amendment. But anyone who has ever spoken up against the powerful knows that freedom of speech isnt as simple as that.

There is more than one way to silence people, and dragging them into costly lawsuits has long been a tried and true method.

In 2011, Texas passed a robust law known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act that provided protections against what are known as SLAPP suits strategic lawsuits against public participation. Such lawsuits quash speech by making it too risky to speak up for fear of being sued.

The TCPA gives parties in lawsuits the opportunity to get an automatic stay of costly discovery and other legal proceedings while an appellate court reviews the matter.

Unfortunately, the state Senate has embraced an overreaching bill that is supposedly aimed at curing abuses to the TCPA.

While there are genuine concerns that the act has been used to stay proceedings in meritorious suits, it is far from clear that such cases are common enough to warrant a major revision of the act that could gut critical public protections.

The bill in question would diminish the TCPA by removing the automatic stay of proceedings under three conditions: If a motion under the act was denied because it was not filed in a timely way, was frivolous or was denied under existing exemptions to the act.

Those amendments might seem innocuous. But they are open to broad interpretation and could be misinterpreted or misunderstood by a trial court, leading to legal costs that would chill free speech.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, will chair a hearing in the state House Wednesday morning on this bill. Leach has offered us assurances that the bill will not pass the House in its current form and that he will not accept a bill that impedes the TCPAs protections.

The bill debate has ignited a good conversation around this important issue and Im hopeful we can reach a workable compromise building on our success in 2019 on the major TCPA amendments, Leach wrote to us.

That was encouraging, but a substitute bill Leach is proposing does not appear to resolve serious concerns. Leachs proposal attempts to strike a middle ground by creating a 45-day stay on legal action once a trial court rules on a TCPA motion. But that will only add pressure on appellate courts that already struggle to rule quickly on these matters.

Leach said the substitute was laid out to set up discussion at Wednesdays hearing and is unlikely to be the version that passes.

Make no mistake: We will aggressively protect the First Amendment protections ensured by our anti-SLAPP laws, he said.

Time will tell. The trouble is that even a well-intended amendment could lead to a huge setback for speech. This law is under persistent pressure from powerful interests that want to see it rolled back. Each legislative cycle seems to bring another threat to the laws core.

If that continues to happen, all Texans will become less free to say what they think.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

Read this article:

Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature - The Dallas Morning News

‘Shawshank Redemption’ star Tim Robbins rips ‘lack of freedom of assembly,’ speech that COVID mandates brought – Fox News

"The Shawshank Redemption" actor Tim Robbins held nothing back in a searing take down of government leaders that promoted COVID-19 lockdown policies in a recent interview.

The movie star claimed those who foisted the mandates upon citizens over the past three and a half years have contributed to a "lack of freedom of movement, lack of freedom of assembly," and a "lack of freedom of speech" in America.

Robbins also lamented that Americans seem to have just forgotten that their freedoms were curtailed, adding that if people dont recall what the politicians did, "were gonna repeat it again. Itll happen again."

ACTOR TIM ROBBINS BACKS WOODY HARRELSON ON ENDING COVID-19 PROTOCOLS: TIME TO END THIS CHARADE

Tim Robbins attends the "Dark Waters" premiere at Walter Reade Theater in New York City on Nov. 12, 2019. (John Lamparski/WireImage)

Robbins made the comments while talking to Hollywood outlet Variety about his new Apple TV+ show, "Silo." The series is about a post-apocalyptic world with people living underground in silos.

According to the outlet, Robbins plays a silo leader who crushes any dissent or protest with swift violence.

The actor told Variety that some of the oppressive subject matter in the show was inspired by real-world events, namely the government crackdown over COVID-19. He began by stating, "Ive always been curious about what goes on in leaders heads when they have to do something that is morally compromising for what they consider the greater good."

Robbins added, "I always look at that as a terrible no-win situation. And I often wonder if those measures that they take, that are immoral, are necessary."

The heavy thoughts prompted the outlet to ask if he was thinking about anything specific. He responded, saying, "Im talking about politicians that compromise themselves and make decisions that they believe are for the good of people, but those decisions involve censorship or lying or deception of some kind that leads to people getting hurt."

As Robbins continued, he became less cryptic: "And I wanted to play that guy, I want to deal with that moral complexity in trying to understand where the human being is. I think weve been through three and a half years of extraordinary and questionable choices made by people that are supposed to be leading their countries."

MEDIA SCOLDED, LAMPOONED FOR DISMISSING NOW-LIKELY COVID LAB LEAK THEORY AS MISINFORMATION

Security enforces a lockdown at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn., on Aug. 4, 2022. Police in Minnesota confirm that gunshots were fired at the Mall of America in suburban Minneapolis, but say no victim has been found. (Richard Tsong-Taatarii/Star Tribune via AP)

The interviewer then asked if Robbins was referring to pandemic lockdowns. He affirmed so, saying, "Yeah, Im talking about that. Im talking about a whole bunch of stuff, lack of freedom of movement, lack of freedom of assembly, lack of freedom of speech. You want to keep going?"

The actor did keep going, underscoring what he believes to be the significant chilling effect of COVID mandates on American freedom and rebuking people for trying to move on from it like it's not big deal.

Robbins said, "I mean, you know, something just happened, and I think theres a tendency where people just want to move on and think, Well, you know, it happened and lets just move on. I think thats really unwise. We have to deal with what happened in a deep and profound way, its traumatic for many people."

"And just ignoring it, as we know with trauma, does not solve a problem," he cautioned, adding, "In fact, it makes it worse. And so until we have the guts to look at what really happened and we question and maybe even hold people accountable for irresponsible leadership, if we dont do that, were gonna repeat it again. Itll happen again."

Robbins mentioned his own theater in Hollywood and voiced his concerns over losing the right to assemble there. He claimed, "I run a theater in Los Angeles it is something that has always existed. Even in the worst, oppressive societies, theres been assembly allowed. Sometimes those assemblies are monitored and so its not safe."

He added, "But supposedly, in a free society, one should be able to collectively gather with others."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Robbins then noted the importance of such a right, stating, "The reason why thats important to collectively gather with others is that becomes a forum. You dont know that everyone in the same room as you agrees with you. So, therefore, its an essential part of living with other human beings. You have to work through differences."

"And instead we were separated and became more and more distanced from each other, and more and more angry with each other," he declared.

A man adjusts his American flag face mask on a street in Hollywood, California, on July 19, 2021. (ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images)

Read more here:

'Shawshank Redemption' star Tim Robbins rips 'lack of freedom of assembly,' speech that COVID mandates brought - Fox News

How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular … – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Lena Shapiro is a clinical assistant professor of law and the inaugural director of the College of Laws First Amendment Clinic, supported by The Stanton Foundation. Shapiro, an expert in free speech issues, spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the current state of the First Amendment in higher education and popular discourse.

Theres an increasing trend on college campuses of students shouting down speakers they disagree with. How would you characterize the current state of the First Amendment in higher education?

Theres an ongoing battle between those who say they want to advance freedom of speech for everyone versus those who want to drown out voices that they dont agree with. The latter group wants to have it both ways: freedom of speech only for their opinions as well as those whose opinions are the same as theirs.

In other words, freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.

What that does is lower the level of discourse that all people have, which is harmful on a college campus because were supposed to be teaching students how to enhance their debate skills and analytic abilities. And when you say, essentially, I dont want this person here because theyre harmful, I find them offensive or They demean the rights of a number of groups of people you can certainly express those views, but that doesnt mean you can take it a step further, as many want to, and remove that speaker from campus. You cant unilaterally deprive others of that speech. Thats the hecklers veto.

If you are diametrically opposed to what this speaker stands for or has to say, you show up and counter protest. You hold another event, or you sit in the room and challenge the speaker with questions real, substantive questions that you want to debate on.

What you dont want are ad hominem attacks or protests that prevent speech from occurring entirely, which is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.

What is the danger of the hecklers veto?

The danger is you dont actually change anyone elses mind. And having not changed their mind, you dont change their behavior. Youre also not minimizing the injustice that you believe results from that speakers speech and/or actions and the speaker who you think was perpetuating that injustice just goes on about their day.

Many students, like those at Stanford Law School who showed up to protest Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, want to speak out and advocate on behalf of issues that are deeply personal to millions of Americans. But by exercising the hecklers veto, those individuals didnt actually change any opinions on those issues, certainly not Judge Duncans.

Some believe if they yell loud enough, and if they scare off enough speakers, then it will just rid the world of the injustices that go on. But thats just not how the world works, right? If you want to change hearts and minds, you have to convince them.

The First Amendment is unique in that it allows misinformation and outright lies to flourish under the guise of the free exchange of ideas. Should the government continue to protect the speech of liars, even though they can inflict damage on society?

We saw that issue play out in the various defamation lawsuits against Fox News. And Fox News paid a big price for the misinformation they aired regarding Dominion Voting Systems, so the system does have checks in place to protect against misinformation. Generally, the news media is granted a wide berth to report on issues as they see fit.

If you start to set stricter standards and start to go after what you perceive to be a lie or misinformation on, say, a social media site, youre first going to have define what a lie is. But as we can see from todays environment, nobody can agree on anything so being able to properly define what a lie is will be challenging.

This is why we have the First Amendment. When people see things they perceive as lies, they are allowed to respond accordingly. I noticed a difference in news coverage late in the Trump administration when reporters on broadcasts across a number of different news outlets would report something that President Trump said and then explain why it wasnt true. Thats the way to deal with lies, misinformation and half-truths. If you think somebody is perpetuating an untruth, then bring your evidence forward. It makes us a better and a smarter society to do it that way.

So I dont think we can regulate what we deem or what someone else deems a lie, aside from some rare exceptions. Its just not realistic, and, ultimately, it harms the First Amendment protections that we have in the U.S.

I know people get upset and have a visceral reaction about various issues in the news. But I just dont know that such reactions change hearts and minds.

Its probably better to focus more on why a certain issue or story isnt true, as opposed to accusing the other side of stupidity, mendacity or malice. I am an advocate for always having more speech. Its why we have free speech in the first place.

Go here to see the original:

How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular ... - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus … – WUFT

TALLAHASSEE The Florida House on Wednesday passed a measure that would put new requirements on universities related to debates and other campus forums, with supporters saying it would bolster free speech but critics arguing it could have unintended consequences.

The Republican-controlled House voted 82-34 along near-party lines to approve the bill (HB 931), which still needs to pass the Senate before it could go to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The proposal (HB 931) also would prevent state colleges and universities from requiring students and staff to complete political loyalty tests as a condition of admission or employment.

Under the bill, each university would be required to establish an Office of Public Policy Events, which would be responsible for organizing, publicizing and staging at least four debates or forums per year.

Such debates and group forums must include speakers who represent widely held views on opposing sides of the most widely discussed public policy issues of the day and who hold a wide diversity of perspectives from within and outside of the state university community, the bill says.

But several House Democrats criticized the bill for not defining widely held views. Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, argued that leaving the issue open to interpretation could benefit some groups over others.

I think its hard to dictate what is a widely held view. That often can take the shape of who is in political power at that time, who is the biggest donor to a university, whos the biggest donor to the governor. I just am very concerned that we actually are not creating an environment with freedom of speech, because some speech will be preferred over others, Eskamani said.

Supporters of the bill, however, argued that it would help protect campus free speech. Rep. Doug Bankson, R-Apopka, called higher-education institutions a crucible of free thought.

It is our foundational right to have freedom of speech. This great bill protects those things. It makes sure that all voices can be heard. Because truth has its own legs, it can stand on its own when its given the chance to be heard, Bankson said.

Rep. Rita Harris, D-Orlando, contended that not all arguments deserve equal airtime.

Im sorry but Nazism, there is no pro (side), there is no flip-side to the coin, Harris said.

Bill sponsor Spencer Roach, R-North Fort Myers Republican, pushed back on Harris argument.

I would argue that Nazism is not a widely held idea. But let me ask you this if a speaker came onto campus advocating that we should reinstitute slavery; that we should exterminate the Jewish population, I would say this, So what? And I will quote our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, when he said, The best way to expose a fool is to allow him to rent out a hall and put forth his ideas to his fellow citizens, Roach said.

The measure also would require that, if a schools Office of Public Policy Events cant readily find an advocate from within the state university community who is well-versed in a perspective, the office would invite a speaker and provide a per-diem and a reimbursement for travel expenses.

Democrats also questioned why the measure did not include a cap on how much money could be provided to invited speakers.

The part of the bill that seeks to prohibit political loyalty tests defines such tests as compelling, requiring, or soliciting a person to identify commitment to or to make a statement of personal belief in support of things such as a specific partisan, political, or ideological set of beliefs.

Such tests also could not require statements of support for any ideology or movement that promotes the differential treatment of a person or a group of persons based on race or ethnicity, including an initiative or a formulation of diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the Constitution.

Read the rest here:

Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus ... - WUFT

Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech … – Independent Record

On Nov. 24, 1964, the Illinois Supreme Court did what no other state high court had ever done it vindicated Lenny Bruces free speech right to perform provocative routines in comedy clubs.

But the freewheeling comedian was not so lucky in New York, where a state court thereafter convicted him of obscenity for his comedic bits. It was just one of such prosecutions, the others being in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The New York conviction stood since Bruce died before he could appeal.

Twenty years ago, however, New York Gov. George Pataki posthumously pardoned the outspoken comedian. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve.

As First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere then put it in his petition seeking the New York pardon: Today, comedy clubs are considered free speech zones, and the monologues that prompted New York to prosecute and convict Lenny Bruce would never be considered obscene.

People are also reading

While that is true insofar as the law of free speech is concerned, today the culture of free speech is increasingly succumbing to censorship. This is why comedy clubs must stand up and boldly reclaim their role as free speech zones and antidotes to cancel culture. Hence, the Bruce story takes on renewed meaning in a nation gone mad with silencing anything that offends anyone in any way.

The comedian was preparing for his performance at The Comedy Zone when a man entered the building shortly after 9pm and brandished a gun. Robinson and those inside the venue were evacuated, after which the suspect discharged his weapon. A spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) released a statement confirming that the suspect had been detained and nobody was injured. On Sunday, Robinson thanked staff at the comedy club and CMPD officers for the way they handled the situation.

To draw again from Corn-Revere: Lenny Bruce was in the vanguard of the transformation of the stand-up comic from jokester to social critic, and his routines covered a wide range of topics including racism,organized religion, homosexuality, and social conventions about the use of language. In the early 1960s, that got him arrested for acts he performed in several comedy clubs.

Bruce was the last of comedians to be criminally prosecuted for word crimes in a comedy club. It was as if the specter of his persecution forever changed the course of American law even without a Supreme Court ruling. After he died on the run, his spirit resurrected: Uninhibited comedy flourished with the likes of George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Joan Rivers and Margaret Cho. In time, both the law and culture of free speech coalesced in ways that gave meaningful breathing room to a robust measure of speech freedom.

Today, however, though the law of free speech is vibrant, the culture is increasingly threatened by the chilling effects of censorship on the left and right. For one thing, some of Bruces comedy could not be performed on college campuses because it would be deemed offensive. Then there is the recent fiasco at Stanford Law School in which boisterous hecklers vetoed a talk to be given by a conservative federal judge invited to speak there. Additionally, conservatives in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis state have heartily endorsed censorship of all kinds.

Countless other troubling examples reveal much the same. In the words of the late historian Nat Hentoff, it all comes down to free speech for me, but not for thee.

Toleration is an anathema to those easily offended by anything that runs counter to their categorical beliefs. So too, being open-minded is not an option for those whose absolute truth is espoused by their preferred cable station. In such a world, mouths are silenced, and minds are closed. It all makes for a society rife with hypocrisy a sacred cow Bruce delighted in slaughtering.

After comedian Dave Chappelles show in Minneapolis was canceled for being offensive, Jamie Masada, owner of comedy club chain the Laugh Factory, told Fox News Digital that the comic stage is their sanctuary. We have to protect the First Amendment. We cant dilute it. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves. Not only should that sanctuary be preserved, but it must also be enriched to exemplify the vital values of free speech zones.

Carlin said Bruce prefigured the free-speech movement and helped push the culture forward into the light of open and honest expression.

More than ever, that light needs to shine brightly, first in and then out of Americas comedy clubs those last safe havens of free speech in a democracy. So let the free speech campaign begin in comedy clubs across the land, those free speech zones where censorship is bum-rushed out the door.

Collins is a retired law professor and co-author, with David Skover, of The Trials of Lenny Bruce. Actor and playwright Ronnie Marmo portrays Lenny Bruce in his hit one-man show Im Not a Comedian ... Im Lenny Bruce.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original:

Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record

What are True Threats Under the First Amendment? – Podcast … – National Constitution Center

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not true threats, which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under true threats (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a true threat is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in theCounterman v. Colorado case, the history of true threats doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that true threats should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speakers specific intent.Genevieve Lakierof the University of Chicago andGabe Waltersof FIRE join hostJeffrey Rosento discuss.

Please subscribe toWe the PeopleandLive at the National Constitution CenteronApple Podcasts,Stitcher,or your favorite podcast app.

Todays episode was produced by Lana Ulrich, Bill Pollock, and Sam Desai. It was engineered by Greg Scheckler. Research was provided by Sam Desai.

Participants

Genevieve Lakieris a professor of law and Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, where she teaches and writes about freedom of speech and constitutional law, including the fight over freedom of speech on social media platforms. She coauthored a brief in support of the respondent, the state of Colorado, in theCountermancase.

Gabe Waltersis an attorney at FIREthe Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He joined FIRE after nine years with the PETA Foundation, where he litigated freedom of speech and freedom of information cases in federal and state courts across the country. He and FIRE filed a brief in support of the petitioner, Bill Ray Counterman, in theCountermancase.

Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.

Additional Resources

Stay Connected and Learn More

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [emailprotected].

Continue todays conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

See the original post:

What are True Threats Under the First Amendment? - Podcast ... - National Constitution Center

Troy, Alabama A&M receive poor ‘red’ rating from campus free … – 1819 News

Nonprofit civil liberties group the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) rated two public four-year schools in Alabama "red" for having some of the most restrictive speech codes in the country.

Of the 13 public four-year schools in the state, 10 were labeled "yellow." Only one received a "green" score.

FIRE, formerly known as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, used to focus exclusively on defending free speech on campus. However, the organization underwent a $75 million expansion to also focus on First Amendment advocacy elsewhere.

Nevertheless, FIRE still maintains a database of free speech complaints from universities and evaluates the institutions' speech codes.

The Alabama Free Speech Act (AFSA) went into effect in 2021. It states that trustees at public Alabama campuses must adopt policies on free expression that allow students, administrators and faculty to take positions on controversial topics and not prohibit the use of outdoor space on campus for free speech purposes, among other requirements.

Even with the AFSA, FIRE pointed out how Alabama schools can still restrict the free speech of their students and faculty.

Troy University and Alabama A&M University received "red" scores from FIRE. According to FIRE, each school has at least one policy that "substantially restricts freedom of speech."

Specific sections of Troy's student handbook received "red" rankings, including its housing and residence policy, policy on harassment and discrimination and technology use policy. FIRE cited problems with how the policies define harassment, sexual harassment and "cruelty, obscenity, crudity and offensiveness."

FIRE included just one case from Troy from 2005 when Troy was one of several universities sued by FIRE around that time. FIRE charged Troy with enacting harsh punishments for what they called "indecent expression" or "any activity that creates a mentally abusive, oppressive, or harmful situation for another." The lawsuit also charged Troy with a breach of contract, unlawful conditions placed on the receipt of state benefits and denial of due process and equal protection of the law.

The case was marked a "FIRE Victory" on FIRE's website.

FIRE did not include a recent incident at Troy covered by 1819 News in which Troy trustees attempted to "vet" research at a free-market think tank associated with the university, citing complaints from Alabama Power and the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) about comments made at an event hosted by the think tank that was critical of economic incentive programs, according to leaked emails.

FIRE gave Alabama A&M a "red" score for its definition of sexual harassment, which includes "sexual overtones that the victim deems offensive" and "unsolicited, deliberate or repeated sexual flirtation, advances or propositions." It also cited Alabama A&M's definition of harassment in its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and Responsible Use of University Computing and Electronic Communications Resources policy.

In 2019, FIRE ranked Alabama A&M as one of its "10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech," along with the University of North Alabama (UNA), which has since earned a "yellow" ranking.

The University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB), the University of Alabama (UA), the University of South Alabama (USA), the University of Montevallo, the University of West Alabama (UWA), the University of North Alabama (UNA), the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), Alabama State University (ASU), Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) and Jacksonville State University (JSU) were all rated "yellow."

Recently, UAH settled a lawsuit with the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty (ACLL) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) over a speech policy that limits most student speech to small "speech zones" and requires that students obtain permits to speak on campus three business days in advance. The university agreed to reverse the policy as part of the settlement.

Though not cited by FIRE, a former UA professor claimed he received pushback from the university for raising questions about the efficacy of the university's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Of all 13 Alabama public universities, Auburn University was the only school to receive a "green" score. Auburn worked with FIRE in 2018 to revisit several speech codes and obtain one of the highest ratings for free speech in the country.

Currently, FIRE ranks Auburn as the 22nd best college for free speech in the country.

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email will.blakely@1819news.com or find him on Twitter and Facebook.

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.

See original here:

Troy, Alabama A&M receive poor 'red' rating from campus free ... - 1819 News

Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter

Advertisers are fleeing Twitter in droves now that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken over control. Now, he's trying to pick up the pieces and begging them to return.

Advertisers are fleeing Twitter in droves now that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken over control.

Ever since officially closing the $44 billion deal, Musk has been busy gutting the company's executive suite and dissolving its board. Senior executives, as well as Twitter's advertising chief Sarah Personette, have departed as well.

After all, Musk has been very clear about his disdain for advertising for years now.

The resulting uncertainty has advertisers spooked — major advertising holding company IPG has already advised clients to pull out temporarily — and the billionaire CEO is in serious damage mode.

Now, Reuters reports, Musk is spending most of this week meeting with advertisers in New York, trying to reassure them that Twitter won't turn into a "free-for-all hellscape."

According to one of Reuters' sources, the meetings have been "very productive" — but plenty of other marketers are far from satisfied.

Advertisers are reportedly grilling Musk over his plans to address the rampant misinformation being spread on the platform, a trend that Musk himself has been actively contributing to since the acquisition.

And if he's succeeding in ameliorating advertisers in private, he's antagonizing them publicly. On Wednesday, Musk posted a poll asking users whether advertisers should support either "freedom of speech," or "political 'correctness'" — a type of false dichotomy that echoes the rhetoric of far-right conspiracy theorists and conservative pundits.

"Those type of provocations are not helping to calm the waters," an unnamed media buyer told Reuters.

Some are going public with the same sentiment.

"Unless Elon hires new leaders committed to keeping this 'free' platform safe from hate speech, it's not a platform brands can/should advertise on," Allie Wassum, global media director for the Nike-owned shoe brand Jordan, wrote in a LinkedIn post.

So far, Musk's plans for the social media platform remain strikingly muddy. In addition to the behind-the-scenes advertising plays, he's also announced that users will have to pay to retain their verification badge, though he's engaged in a comically public negotiation as to what the cost might be.

He's also hinted that previously banned users — former US president Donald Trump chief among them — might eventually get a chance to return, but only once "we have a clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few more weeks."

The move was seen by many as a way to wait out the impending midterm elections. After all, Twitter has played a huge role in disseminating misinformation and swaying elections in the past.

While advertisers are running for the hills, to Musk advertising is clearly only a small part of the picture — even though historically, social giants like Twitter have struggled to diversify their revenue sources much beyond display ads.

Musk nodded to that reality in a vague open letter posted last week.

"Low relevancy ads are spam, but highly relevant ads are actually content!" he wrote in the note, addressed to "Twitter advertisers."

Big picture, Twitter's operations are in free fall right now and Musk has yet to provide advertisers with a cohesive plan to pick up the pieces.

While he's hinted at the creation of a new content moderation council made up of both "people from all viewpoints" and "wildly divergent views," advertisers are clearly going to be thinking twice about continuing their business with Twitter.

With or without advertising, Twitter's finances are reportedly in a very deep hole. The billions of dollars Musk had to borrow to finance his mega acquisition will cost Twitter around $1 billion a year in interest alone.

The company also wasn't anywhere near profitable before Musk took over, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a single quarter.

Whether that picture will change any time soon is as unclear as ever, especially in the face of a wintry economy.

But, of course, Musk has proved his critics wrong before. So anything's possible.

READ MORE: Advertisers begin to grill Elon Musk over Twitter 'free-for-all' [Reuters]

More on the saga: Elon Musk Pulling Engineers From Tesla Autopilot to Work on Twitter

The post Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:

Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter

The Importance of Freedom of Speech – Center for Global Justice

Post by: Katrina Sumner

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

The truth of this statement regarding barbarous acts was demonstrated again last week by the beheading of a beloved history teacher in Paris. The teacher was killed in broad daylight near his school in what appears to be retaliation for a lesson he taught on freedom of speech. French President Macron said the teacher was murdered, for teaching students freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe. His murder has shocked and outraged thousands who took to the streets all across France to express their support for the slain educator.

The teachers murder is yet another example of why the freedom of speech is to be cherished and protected. While it is important for nations to safeguard freedom of speech, it is also important that individuals recognize that others have the right to speak freely without being subjected to violence or death.

Sometimes people speak disparagingly about freedom of speech as if it is no longer to be cherished. This liberty is as precious today as it ever has been. It is encouraging to see nations take steps to secure liberties like the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief to their people. For example, in July 2020, Sudan repealed its apostasy laws making the changing of ones religion no longer a death penalty offense in that country.

Freedom of speech is an important human right. People should not have to live in fear of death for exercising it. Our goal as individuals should be to embrace our own right to freedom of expression while respecting that others have this right, as well.

This post was written by a Center for Global JusticeStudent Staff member. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

View original post here:

The Importance of Freedom of Speech - Center for Global Justice

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech – The Hindu

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

Leaders of the powerful G7 grouping and its five partner countries, including India, have said that they are committed to open public debate and the free flow of information online and offline while guarding the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors.

In a joint statement titled 2022 Resilient Democracies Statement issued in Elamu on June 27 during the G7 Summit, the leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said they are prepared to defend these principles and are resolved to protect the freedom of expression.

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors.

The leaders said democracies enable open public debate, independent and pluralistic media and the free flow of information online and offline, fostering legitimacy, transparency, responsibility and accountability for citizens and elected representatives alike.

The leaders said they resolved to protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline and ensuring a free and independent media landscape through our work with relevant international initiatives. They promised to guard the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors, speak out against threats to civic space, and respect freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The leaders pledged to ensure an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure internet; increase the cyber resilience of digital infrastructure, including by improving and sharing awareness of cyber threats and expanding cyber response cooperation and counter hybrid threats, in particular, information manipulation and interference, including disinformation.

They also resolved to cooperate to counter information manipulation, promote accurate information and advocate for shared democratic values worldwide.

They vowed to promote affordable access to diverse sources of reliable and trustworthy information and data, online and offline, including through a multi-stakeholder approach, and by strengthening digital skills and digital literacy.

They also pledged to enhance transparency about the actions of online platforms to combat violent, extremist and inciting content online in line with the Christchurch Call to Action.

The Christchurch Call is a commitment by governments and tech companies to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

They said democracies lay and protect the foundations for free and vibrant civic spaces, enabling and encouraging civic engagement and political participation, which in turn stimulate meaningful legitimacy, creativity, innovation, social accountability, and responsibility. The leaders said they are committed to building resilience against malign foreign interference and acts of transnational repression that seek to undermine trust in government, society and media, reduce civic space and silence critical voices.

The leaders pledged to advance programmes for the protection of human rights defenders and all those exposing corruption; promote academic freedom and strengthen the role of scientific evidence and research in democratic debate; protect civic space, and uphold transparent, accountable, inclusive and participatory governance, including by advancing womens full, equal and meaningful participation and leadership in civic and political life.

The Group of Seven (G7) is an inter-governmental political grouping consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.

Besides India, Germany, the host of the G7 Summit, had also invited Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa as guests for the summit to recognise the democracies of the global south as its partners.

Read the original post:

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech - The Hindu

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech – Reason

Because of the social media circus surrounding the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation trial, it was easy to overlook one of the principalyet least likelyactors in the courtroom drama: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which ghostwrote and placed the 2018 Washington Post op-ed by Heard about surviving domestic abuse that was the basis of the trial.

It's only the latest example of how the group has in recent years strayed from its original mission of defending speech, no matter how vile.Awash with money after former President Donald Trump was elected, the ACLU transformed into an organization that championed progressive causes, undermining the principled neutrality that helped make it a powerful advocate for the rights of clients ranging from Nazis to socialists.

It questioned the due process rights of college students accused of sexual assault and harassment under Title IX rules. It ran partisan ads against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a move that current Executive Director Anthony Romero told The New York Times was a mistake. The ACLU also called for the federal government to forgive $50,000 per borrower in student loans.

As the ACLU recedes from its mission, enter another free speech organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. Founded in 1999 to combat speech codes on college campuses, FIRE is expanding to go well beyond the university and changing its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The group has raised $29 million toward a three-year "litigation, opinion research and public education campaign aimed at boosting and solidifying support for free-speech values."

"I think there have been better moments for freedom of speech when it comes to the culture," says FIRE's president, Greg Lukianoff. "When it comes to the law, the law is about as good as it's ever been. But when it comes to the culture, our argument is that it's gotten a lot worse and that we don't have to accept it."

Lukianoff tells Reason that FIRE's new initiatives have been in the works for years, but gained urgency during the COVID lockdowns. "Pretty much from day one, people have been asking us to take our advocacy off campus to an extent nationally," he says. "But 2020 was such a scarily bad year for freedom of speech on campus and off, we decided to accelerate that process." Despite 80 percent of campuses being closed and doing instruction remotely, Lukianoff says that FIRE received 50 percent more requests for help from college students and faculty. He also points to The New York Times' editorial page editor, James Bennet, getting squeezed out after running an article by Sen. Tom Cotton (RArk.) and high-profile journalists such as Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, and Matt Yglesias "stepping away from [their publications], saying that the environment was too intolerant."

FIRE is also expanding its efforts beyond legal advocacy and into promoting what Lukianoff calls "the culture of free speech." As Politico reports, it will spend $10 million "in planned national cable and billboard advertising featuring activists on both ends of the political spectrum extolling the virtues of free speech."

He says that people in their 40s and 50s grew up in a country where the culture of free speech was embedded in colloquial sayings and common attitudes. "Things like everyone's entitled to their opinion, which is something you heard all the time when we were kids. It's a free country, to each their own, statements of deep pluralism, like the idea that [you should] walk a mile in a man's shoes," he explains. "All of these things are great principles for taking advantage of pluralism, but they've largely sort of fallen out of usage due to a growing skepticism about freedom of speech, particularly on campus, that's been about 40 years in the making."

Lukianoff has nothing negative to say about the ACLU (in fact, he used to work there) and stresses that FIRE has worked with the organization since "day one" and continues to do so. But unlike the ACLU, FIRE isn't at risk of turning into a progressive advocacy organization, partly because its staff is truly bipartisan.

"This is the first nonprofit I ever worked for where you had people who actually voted for different major-party candidates. When I worked at the ACLU in 1999, people voted for the Democrats or the Green Party," he says, noting that he is himself a liberal. But at FIRE, he continues, "My executive director is a Republican and an evangelical, a fact of which I am extremely proud."

That pluralistic pride extends to the groups funding FIRE, too. He says that critics, especially on Twitter, point to support his organization receives from "conservative and libertarian foundations" as if that invalidates its work. Yes, they give FIRE money, he says. "And you should be very proud of them, because we routinely defend people who hate their guts and we never get any foundation saying that they're taking back our funding."

Lukianoff thinks that despite the rise of cancel culture, most Americans still understand the value of free speech, but they need to be encouraged to stand up for it. FIRE's polling, he says, reveals that "it's really a pretty small minority, particularly pronounced on Twitter, that is anti-free-speech philosophically and thinks that people should shut up and conform."

For that reason, he's upbeat that FIRE will succeed in helping to restore belief in the value and function of free speech. "I think that once you start giving people permission to believe in small d democratic norms again, a lot of people are going to reveal their actual preferences. You know: 'I don't want you to fire Larry for who he voted for or a dumb joke [he] made on Twitter,'" he says. "Part of our job isreminding younger people about some of these principles because they haven't heard them before. But for most Americans, I think reminding them and giving them permission to believe what most Americans believeis a reason to be optimistic about it."

This video is based on a longer conversation I had with Lukianoff for The Reason Interview podcast. Listen to that here.

Photo Credits: Tim Evanson, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; tedeytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Ludwig von Mises Institute, via Wikimedia Commons; LvMI, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Stefani Reynolds/CNP / Polaris/Newscom.

Music Credits: "End To End," by Jonny Hughes via Artlist.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor.

Originally posted here:

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech - Reason

‘What’s the point inviting me on!’ Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row – Express

Piers Morgan invited Larissa Kennedy onto Thursday's instalment of Piers Morgan Uncensored to debate a report which revealed students want more restrictions on free speech. The broadcaster and student clashed over the report and Larissa became frustrated she could not finish her points as she kept being challenged by Piers.

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute has revealed the dramatic surge in support for censorship by students.

The report revealed nearly 60 percent of those who were surveyed were opposed to unlimited free speech.

It also revealed almost 40 percent believed the Student Union should ban all speakers who might cause offence, and 76 percent want universities to get rid of any historical figures which might be deemed offensive.

Before the interview with Larissa got underway, Piers told viewers he believed the report was "absolutely nuts".

READ MORE:'Unspeakable' Prince Andrew savaged over 'cruel' treatment to Queen

Piers asked Larissa: "What's going on at universities and why have you all become the enemies of free speech?

"Why do you all get triggered by everything and why have you all become such snowflakes?

The student replied: "Yes we need to uphold freedom of speech but we also need protection so we can ensure our campuses are a safe space for evolving people.

"And if you want to ask what that means, it means if you have got someone with views which are obviously going to spark outrage, that you give a heads up to the people coming."

The TalkTV host explained he was allowed to challenge Larissa on her views before he branded the student "ageist" after she told him he had not been in education since he was 19 years old.

"You're the snowflake here, you're the snowflake here," she said. "All I am saying is how can you know what is going on at universities?"

Piers clapped back and said he understood what is going on from the report by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

"Can I ask you a question without you getting offended?" Piers asked Larissa as she rolled her eyes at him.

"I'm not offended, you could not offend me if you tried," Larissa added.

Piers asked Larissa what her idea of free speech was and she replied: "My idea of free speech is people being able to express themselves whether that is through speakers on campus or through protests."

The pair left on a sour note after they clashed over whether Larissa would want Harry Potter author JK Rowling to be a guest speaker at a university.

Piers Morgan Uncensored continues on weeknights at 8pm on TalkTV.

Follow this link:

'What's the point inviting me on!' Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row - Express

‘How You React Is the Only Thing You Can Control’ – The Atlantic

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

In my last newsletter, I asked readers, What norms should govern jokes in our society? What, if anything, makes a joke harmful? What harm, if any, is there in punishing people for jokes or chilling the expression of jokes? How has humor improved your life? Have jokes ever made your life worse? Many of you responded with memories of laughter or comedic appreciation. Others shared raw stories of hurt. And one correspondent argued that I should be fired. (Thankfully, her email was not persuasive.)

Nancy strongly dislikes hearing a certain four-letter word in comedy:

I dont appreciate hearing f this, f ing thatvery limited vocabularies besides, since when is f ing something bad? Maybe theyre doing it wrong.

Thats reportedly true of at least one randy singer-songwriter.

Victor learned the value of joking about serious subjects amid a family tragedy:

My son Aidan was diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma in 2018 at the age of 14. In 2019 we were told his cancer had spread to his lungs. There was nothing that could be done for him.

We brought him home to spend his last days with us. We spent a lot of time watching TV together, especially shows about superheroes. One show that stands out is The Boys on Amazon Prime, because of a particular episode. There is a scene where one of the superheroes visits a boy with cancer in the hospital as part of his Make-A-Wish. The boy becomes upset because the superhero was not the one he wanted to meet. Aidan laughed at the scene but he laughed even harder when the Superhero, who is the fastest runner in the world, told the boy he can teach him to run. The boy who was still upset responded, Can you teach me to outrun cancer? My initial response was of shock because I didnt think cancer was funny, but seeing Aidans response allowed me to appreciate the power of humor or dark comedy and its ability to make light of difficult situations.

Lisa writes that shes grateful to have a child who shares her sense of humor:

I am one of those people who has been told many times, Youre funny. No, I mean it, youre really funny. Maybe I really am. I have thought of joining Twitter to simply share humor. However, I am self-aware enough to understand this is said only by those people who know me and give the benefit of doubt to the stuff I say, otherwise known as grace.

Not too long ago, I was having a serious conversation with my child. We were discussing hormones and how they play a part in upsetting our emotions, especially during puberty and menopause. The topic of suicide came up, and my child asked if I had ever had any thoughts along those lines. We had been talking for a while and know each other well. My reply: I think I would kill your father before I killed myself What if Im not the problem? We laughed. A lot. Out of context, this is obviously a very dark thing to think, much less to say out loud to your child. Now you see why I could never be on Twitterinstant cancellation and probably urgent texts, screenshots, and calls to my husband. Humor requires all of us to be nonbinary in our thinking. It is ironic that the most stridently accepting of everyones TRUTH often cant find their funny bone.

Humor got Laura through a dark moment, too:

When my father died, his wake was appropriately somber at first. Hed had a long stretch of debilitation as a result of cancer and chemo, and my gentle, sweet dad succumbed.

What was wonderful was the laughter, though, as memories of my always-smiling, frequently laughing father started to bubble up. The family and friends gathered to remember him began to talk louder, laugh more, and reminisce about his sense of humor. As we all got sillier, a sudden group self-awareness took over and we all hushed at the impropriety of laughing after death. Until, again as if we were one body, the group realized that was what Dad would have wanted. (I could feel him in the room with us, impatient at our seriousness.) Now, as I help a friend cope with end-stage cancer (again), what strikes me anew is how he and I find relief from the seriousness of his situation in silly jokes about death, his difficulty walking and breathing, and what both of us fear and dread. Humor (we all have different senses of it) helps us cope with what we fear.

Emilys dad gave her the same gift:

Nothing should be off the table to make jokes about. My dad had one of the darkest senses of humor; he made off color jokes all the time, especially when it came to death. He absolutely believed that everything was funny. If you tried to tell him a joke wasnt funny, then THAT was funny. My dad had some tough experiences as a young person, so humor for him became how to get through it. It wasnt an act, though. It wasnt Lets laugh so we dont cry. He honestly just learned how to find it all, everything, worth laughing about. As Oscar Wilde said, Life is too short to be taken seriously. Which isnt a denial of dark things or hard things; it is learning to coexist with them so as to not live in fear.

When my dad died quickly and unexpectedly from Covid in 2020, at 64, it was his humor that helped us get through it. His ability to make you laugh at the exact wrong moment is why I far more often think of him and smile or laugh than I think of him and cry. He, more than anyone, would find his own death hysterical. He would be furious, for sure, but I know he would have us rolling making jokes about it, too. Before his death, I didnt know it was possible to laugh and cry at the same time about the same thing. Life is only misery and suffering if you cant learn to laugh about misery and suffering.

Val appreciates being around others who can both dish it out and take it:

Among jokesters, we all take our turn in the barrel. We tell a joke about someones nationality or job or hobbythen someone tells a joke about something near and dear to us.

We grin and bear it and sometimes have to admit, Hey! Thats funny!

No blood, no foul. Only people with absolutely NO sense of humor should ever be truly offended by a joke. If you cant laugh at yourself, you have no standing to laugh at others. I generally find such people to be difficult to be around. I also dont think they lead very fun lives. I think joke tellers need to be sensitive to their audience. Its definitely possible to go too far or injure peoples feelings. If you dont know your audience well, its possible to strike a little too close to a nerve. This is why I like to be with people with good senses of humor. Still, one always has to be careful about hitting below the belt.

Reb writes with mixed feelings:

This comic [strip] came out when I was in junior high school, and it has stuck with me in the nearly 40 years since. Ive pulled it up as a reminder many times in my life when either I, or someone else, overreacted. However, I do believe that laughing at a joke is implicit approval of it. I was often the butt of jokes at schoolabout my speech, physical appearance, and impairmentand yes, it was harmful to my self-image and my willingness to interact with others.

Even if you are not directly named in the joke, if you see yourself in it, it can sting, and if others approve of it, that can be harmful. How you react is the only thing you can control, so maybe you react publicly to object to that harm. As an individual that seems right and fair. I dont tend to listen to comedians. I have denied them a platform from which to present to me. But is ignoring (or not explicitly rebuking) a comedian (or politician) who says things I find hurtful to me or others also a form of implicit approval?

I think, perhaps, it is.

To the question Have jokes ever made your life worse? Adam answers, Good Lord, yes. He writes:

I grew up in the U.K. in the 1990s, and Im a cisgender guy whos mostly attracted to other guys. I would absolutely not have *dreamed* of coming out at school. You know the one thing I dreaded more than anything else? Not being simply abused, verbally or physically (although both would certainly have happened), but being *ridiculed*. That was the thing I feared the most and would have found most harmful, and it would certainly have happened, as Id seen it happening to others, whether they were out or just perceived to be gay. The very word gay was a pervasive catchall term of abuse and ridicule.

Being straightforwardly attacked, in a strange way, contains a compliment: You are at least being acknowledged as important enough to fight with. But being ridiculed has no such backhanded compensation. Being ridiculed is the mortal enemy of empathy. It makes you less than a person. It was the one thing I absolutely could not deal with, so I spent a lot of my life trying to hide a lot of who I was. Comedy is no sideline or bystander in this issue, either. Its absolutely no coincidence that the period in which it became increasingly socially unacceptable to attack people for their sexualityaround the 2000s to 2010swas exactly the time society stopped tolerating comedy which did the same.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, there was a vein of comedy in the U.K. which more or less entirely focused on insulting people for their identity. Bernard Manning was the most notorious of these comedians, and if you go looking, youll find quite a lot of debate in serious newspapers and so on about him and this genre of comedy, which very much mirrors the current one, with the term politically correct replacing the current term woke for exactly the same purpose. The jokes that were directed at normal, everyday women and minorities by normal, everyday people were the same ones these comedians told on TV and the popular club circuit. They were very influential. It took a concerted effort by liberals to shift attitudes to the point that, finally, this kind of humor was generally no longer considered acceptable, and thankfully still isnt. History suggests that the best approach is to do the hard labor of shifting peoples attitudes.

Samantha recounts awful abuse that she encountered growing up:

High school, for me, was hell. Depression, anxiety, and stifling academic pressures absolutely played a role, but so did overt bigotry wrapped up as humor. Every time I tried to challenge my classmates and even my teachers on the horrible things they said about me or other minority groups, I would be treated with an eye roll and a mocking laugh about how I just didnt understand humor and overreacted to everything. I learned to keep my head down while people laughed so they didnt see me crying.

What are some of the things my classmates and teachers alike thought were hilarious? A student kept calling me, Hey, Jew! I asked her to please call me by my name. A different student responded with a laugh, Jews dont have names. They only have numbers!

We watched a documentary about life in prison camps in North Korea. A scene showed a child so hungry that he dug through animal manure for a single piece of corn. My class erupted in laughter at the idea of a starving, tortured child being forced to eat poop. Jokes about people raping me. Jokes about me burning in a gas chamber. Jokes about how people who self-harm should just kill themselves. Jokes about wanting to gun down Romani people. This isn't humor; this is bigotry, cruelty, and bullying.

Lia explains why she is upset with Dave Chappelle:

I am Asian American and transgender. In school I used to get called eggroll behind my back, because I was a chubby teenager. I think my life would probably be better if I hadnt known Some might say that this is bullying, not comedy. But humor is just a tool, and a tool can be used to various ends. The kids who made fun of me certainly thought these were jokes. If pressed, I wouldnt be surprised if they would have said, Were just kidding. But is Its a joke a proper response to being told that youve hurt someone?

When you turn an idea into a joke, you create a premade set of words that anyone can repeat. The joke that Asian men have small penises, which classmates directed at me countless times, is not something that just anyone would come up with on their own. How many middle-school boys are going around doing cross-cultural examinations of relative phallic size? But they heard the joke, and some vague feeling of hatred or phobia that lived inside of them found an easy way to slip out into the world and make itself known. Its not great that they had those negative feelings inside them to begin with, but by putting those feelings into words, theyve actively made another persons life worse as well.

I looked up some of the anti-trans jokes and comments that Dave Chappelle has made. They made my heart sink. When Chappelle says, I am not saying... trans women arent women. Im just saying that those pussies that theyve got yknow what I mean? Im not saying thats not pussy, but Im saying thats, like, Beyond Pussy or Impossible Pussy, yknow what I mean? my reaction is not as a progressive, finding his ideas problematic. My reaction is as a trans person, feeling hurt. When I came out as transgender to my mom in college, she threatened to disown me. When I visited her on Christmas that year, she was deep in drink, and laughed at me and groped my breasts and said, Oh my God, these are real? You look almost like a woman. Then she told me how she would never be disappointed in me again for the rest of her life, because she learned to stop expecting anything good to come from me, and drank some more.

Yes. I know what you mean, Dave.

If I were a student at Duke Ellington School, what recourse would I have? One thing I could do is keep quiet, and keep hurting to myself, every time I see that a man who has insulted me has been honored as a Great Man and has had a building named after him. Another thing I could do is vandalize the building. But I dont think thats a very good idea, since Id be taking into my own hands the destruction of something that belongs to a community. Ultimately, I think, the only democratic thing I could do that is fair to myself and fair to the community is to object to the dedication. Is that the stifling of free speech, or is it the most civil form of grievance possible for a student?

Olive draws distinctions among jokes:

For me, what makes a joke harmful is not its content or its response, but its intent. A joke told for the sake of hurting other people (not offending or making angry, but causing anguish) is what can be harmful. If a joke makes me angry, its usually because it hurt my ego a little and I can recognize thats not all that bad. But a joke thats only a thinly veiled insult or bigoted dog whistle defended by Its only a joke. Why are you mad? can be harmful. Jokes show people whats considered acceptable to say, and communicating to the world that its okay to be hateful does more harm than good.

It should be up to the people telling the jokes to measure their own intentions and read the room. Forethought can be put in to consider if a joke will hurt or offend. If itll be hurtful, or rile up people with hateful views, a little self-censorship isnt necessarily a bad thing. But if itll only offend, it should be told to everyone who needs to hear it. A joke that causes someone to lose their job is ridiculous. But people do have a right to not like a joke. A joke being met with a comment saying its not funny isnt cancel culture. Freedom of speech should go both ways, to the people telling jokes and the people complaining, as long as neither has any expectation of a person losing their livelihood.

Kathy defends comics from offended audience members:

I love stand-up comedy. Im particularly drawn to those who are controversial. Dave Chappelle, Doug Stanhope, Chris Rock, and Patton Oswalt have made me laugh, made me think, made me reflect on myself. Louis C. K. is still one of my favorite storyteller comedians. Hes dark, makes me uncomfortable, but he really makes me laugh! And Im laughing at myself most of the time! Anytime Ive heard an offensive joke, sure, I think, Hmmm Thats a little wrong. But I also reflect on the joke, find the truth in the humor, feel where its affecting me, and see if maybe Ive got something worth rethinking, healing, or changing. Maybe theres an old belief or wound the joke is challenging. Thats all mine. I dont yell at the comedian. Its not their fault I feel the way I do about their jokes.

Matt is sympathetic to comics, too:

I always look at comics as trying to make people laugh, not expressing their straight opinions. Often, dirty, vulgar, offensive jokes are targeting that balance between being funny because theyre so taboo and going too far. I hesitate on assigning deeper meaning to most jokes in those categories because the comic is performing. It is up to each comic to have the tact to make their jokes in a way that is effective. If they dont, they wont be successful in their career. If jokes that are truly offensive and inappropriate are successful, that is a reflection of the audience, and the comic is just a mirror.

If you respect the comedian, take a minute to see if you cant hear what theyre really saying. Figure out why it bothers you so much and try laughing at yourself. Laughter is the best medicine.

Jim wants comics to be given a wide berth as artists:

If one considers jokes as art, and professional comedians as artists (which I do), then often they lead social culture more than being defined by it. I dont appreciate all art. I dont appreciate all jokes. But I appreciate the artists courage and willingness to venture into risky territory. Artists who are too perverse, edgy, or ahead-of-their-time often dont experience the appreciation of their work in their lifetime. That is their punishment.

If society tries to impose a greater punishment than that on comedians or artists, then that society will rob them of their courage to be risky and will end up with safe, largely uninspired art.

Errol defends comics who mock what they find ridiculous:

My all-time hero in comedy has been Lenny Bruce, the guy before George Carlin, who would literally be arrested onstage and taken to jail, banned from certain countries, and essentially facing constant lawsuits throughout his life because he said things like cocksucker. He saw through a ridiculous filter on society and risked his life and freedom to expose it. Thats what comedy is. Its making fun of something you think is ridiculous. The freedom to spotlight that is key to equality and true progressivism. You are very unlikely to be harmed by something that someone says sometimes in your life. Thats living with other people. The world does not revolve around one person, nor does it revolve around one group of people. Life is fleeting, and to spend so much time and energy and anger and pain on a joke is to squander the only gift the universe has given you.

In the case of stand-up comedians, the remotes right there. You dont have to watch, pay for, or listen to anything you dont want to. You can tell your phone, Im not interested in ___.

Greg is the founder of a comedy club and offers this advice:

We need to bring back the word tacky. When a comedian tells a joke that feels a little icky, that seems like it might go over the line a bit, critics jump to offensive immediately, or say that the language does harm, or, God forbid, makes them feel unsafe. Joke tellers might feel less attacked and be less defensive if those critics expressed their displeasure by saying the joke was simply tacky. Thats it. It easily sums up the ideas of it being in poor taste, not being very funny, or just being a bit ugly. But without the accusatory tones of prejudice, bias, racism, and making the world a worse place.

Paul castigates me for airing different viewpoints about Chappelle, rather than simply condemning him:

Chappelles comedy carries the same potential for negative influence on public sentiment that Fox News has. It will lead to more transphobia, more intolerance, more hate, and more violence toward the LGBTQ community and transgender people as well. I find the cavalier attitude people such as you havewith no practical, real-world experience with what you write aboutto be disgusting and offensive. I think you should try interviewing people who are trans and parents of transgender children about how they feel about this topic.

I think you will be in for a rude awakening. I am the parent of two wonderful, beautiful, smart, talented, and kind transgender young people. They are the apple of my eye, and I will support and fight for them til my dying breath. I suggest you try walking a day in my shoes. But you cant. Youre a close-minded transphobe who doesnt understand what it means to protect someone you love who is part of a vulnerable and now legally targeted group.

Megan goes further, urging The Atlantic to fire me. Because you continue to give a platform to Conor Friedersdorf despite his numerous demonstrably terrible, harmful opinions, she writes, yet another cishet white man has yet another opportunity to widely disseminate his completely irrelevant opinion on why things that demonstrably harm marginalized people whose marginalization he materially benefits from Arent That Bad, Actually (TM).

While I didnt actually express the opinion that Megan describes, I do disagree with anyone whod stop us from exchanging all these viewsopen conversation is the path to tolerance and equality.

In contrast, Darren wants to keep me around:

You seem more willing than most to take us, and yourself, outside our comfort zone and ask the uncomfortable questions that need to be asked. That qualityof taking us all out of our comfort zonesis exactly what makes comedy so essential to the work of democracy. I gave a TEDx talk in 2020 on the topic of The Politics of Laughter in which I argued that you simply cant have democracy without comedy. Put differently, if we lose comedy, we lose democracy. Id even go bigger and say that if we lose comedy, we lose humanity.

As a professor, I work on some pretty grim topics (human-rights violations, genocide, etc.) and the only thing that gets me to the end of the day without fail is a sense of humor. A good joke is like a true friend. I look on with great dismay as a growing chorus of people advocate limits on what comedians can say and what they can tell jokes about. Laughter brings us together in a moment of community, and so silencing comedians will only serve to tear us apart. Comedy has only made my life better, personally and professionally. In fact, comedy only made my life worse one time, when I was attacked by a crowd simply because I told an incite joke. (Sorry, had to end on a bad pun.)

And John says that in a world of terrible acts, targeting jokes for punishment is inapt and counterproductive:

My real problem with all this is simply that while good, moral, and honest people are now walking on eggshells for fear of being the next canceled person for some unspecified, unnormalized offense, plenty of people are saying and doing the most outrageous things and most decidedly not being canceled. We are amplifying those voices dramatically. Actual, outright enemies of democracy are growing in strength every day, and we are still having this stupid conversation. My advice to the entire Twitterati is to stop this bullshit right now. It doesnt help anybody living in the real world; it makes for great fodder for the right-wing culture war. And it is mistargeted, badly.

View post:

'How You React Is the Only Thing You Can Control' - The Atlantic

Binance CEO says ‘free speech is very hard to define’ – Business Insider

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao has weighed in on the heated free speech debate that has consumed social media.

The company is one of a handful that pledged funds to "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk's bid to take Twitter private, promising $500 million. Zhao told Bloomberg in a lengthy interview published this week that he's all for the cause.

"We want to support free speech," Zhao said, before Bloomberg asked if that sentiment applies to his company's decision to sue Forbes in 2020 for defamation over a report saying Binance was dodging regulation. (The suit was later dropped).

To bring the suit, Binance hired lawyer Charles Harder, who's best known for teaming up with billionaire investor Peter Thiel in his fight against Gawker Media that eventually bankrupted the outlet.

"Free speech is very hard to define," Zhao said in the interview, maintaining that the article is inaccurate. "I've never talked to Charles Harder. Our team handled it."

Free speech has been a key driver in Musk's acquisition of Twitter. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire has been vocal about his desire to ease Twitter's policies on harmful content. The platform and its moderation decisions have been thrust into a culture war as conservative figures claim Big Tech is stifling their freedom of speech by flagging and removing posts that break their rules.

Zhao also said the suit had with Binance's decision to invest $200 million in Forbes' plans to go public via a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC . The deal may be scrapped, however, as The New York Times reported in late May, after investors showed a decline in interest in the deals.

Zhao, who is worth $18.5 billion, also discussed with Bloomberg his company's mission and his stance on money. The outlet spoke to former Binance employees and investors who described the iron grip that Zhao has over his company.

See the original post here:

Binance CEO says 'free speech is very hard to define' - Business Insider

New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equ – Benzinga

Report aids governing board members who grapple with conflicts on campus related to a perceived tension between free speech and the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- TheAssociation of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges(AGB), the premier organization advocating strategic board leadership in higher education,today released Freedom of Speech and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Campus: Considerations for Board Members and Chief Executives, a publication providing practical insights into why and how institutional leaders should prioritize freedom of speech as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Colleges and universities are grappling with conflicts on campus related to a perceived tension between free speech and the advancement of DEItwo pillars of institutional missions. Freedom of speech is not only a fundamental right under the First Amendment but also the foundation of academic freedom. Simultaneously, the ongoing national reckoning on race and culture has called attention to the importance of DEI as a cornerstone of student success, institutional viability, and a more educated citizenry. Some DEI proponents claim that provocateurs abuse institutional commitments to free speech to promote ideas that exclude and marginalize vulnerable populations, which can hinder student success, demoralize campus communities, and present a reputational risk for the institution and higher education.

With an increasingly diverse student population, board members and chief executives should recognize their time-sensitive imperative to contextualize these issues for students while cultivating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive campus environment for faculty, staff, and students. The AGB publication offers practical advice for higher education leaders in anticipating, evaluating, and addressing these issues. Two such recommendations include ensuring that the institution's freedom of speech and campus climate policies are harmonized and calling on the administration to create response plans before anticipated conflicts break out.

This report comes at a time when students, administrators, lawmakers, and the public are grappling with questions about the nature and limits of free speech and the impacts that it has on social cohesion and individual well-being. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), multiple states have enacted laws to protect free speech rights for students and faculty at state institutions. At the same time, some of the same legislatures passed "divisive concepts" legislation, limiting the kind of conversations and the topics of discussion in classrooms. Against this backdrop, students appear to believe that a wide spectrum of speech at college is important, although there is nuance among racial groups. According to a 2022 survey by the Knight Foundation, students of color believe their speech is less protected. White students, on the other hand, report that diversity and inclusion sometimes conflict with their freedom of speech.

While a previous AGB publication focused on key points of consensus regarding the boundaries of free speech, this report goes a step further to help boards face instances where frictions arise between the institutional priorities of protecting free speech and advancing DEI.

AGB President and CEO Henry Stoever affirms the need for boards to be prepared to address these issues in a timely and comprehensive manner. "Board members should not wait for a crisis on campus to focus on these issues. Upholding the principles of academic inquiry, civil discourse, and free speech is fundamental to college and university missions," he said. "It's also critical for boards to model this behavior for the rest of the campus community. If boards cannot model inclusive behavior and champion free speech, how can they expect others to do so? It is too important to students' success to ignore."

A complimentary e-book version of Freedom of Speech and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Campus: Considerations for Board Members and Chief Executives is available for AGB members at AGB.org/Freedomofspeech.

About AGB The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) is the premier membership organization that strengthens higher education governing boards and the strategic roles they serve within their organizations. Through our vast library of resources, educational events, and consulting services, and with 100 years of experience, we empower 40,000 AGB members from more than 2,000 institutions and foundations to navigate complex issues, implement leading practices, streamline operations, and govern with confidence. AGB is the trusted resource for board members, chief executives, and key administrators on higher education governance and leadership.

Media Contact

Morgan Alexander, AGB, 1 2027760853, media@agb.org

SOURCE AGB

Read more:

New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equ - Benzinga

Elon Musk Isn’t Buying Twitter to Defend Free Speech – The Atlantic

Conservatives on Twitter have greeted Elon Musk as a liberator. The mega-billionaire is in the process of purchasing the social-media platform and reorienting it toward what he calls free speech. The conservative columnist Ben Shapiro celebrated the news of the new free-speech era by insisting that Musk engage in politically motivated mass firings of Twitter workers based on their perceived political leanings.

For those who are not terminally online, a little explanation is in order. Compared to the big social media giants, Twitter is a relatively small but influential social network because it is used by many people who are relatively important to political discourse. Although the moderation policies of a private company dont implicate traditional questions of free speechthat is, state restriction of speechTwitters policies have played a prominent role in arguments about free speech online, that is, how platforms decide what they want to host.

When people talk about free speech in this more colloquial context, what they mean is that certain entities may be so powerful that their coercive potential mimics or approaches that of the state. The problem is that when private actors are involved, there's no clear line between one person's free speech and another: A private platform can also decide not to host you if it wants, and that is also an exercise of speech. Right-wing demands for a political purge of Twitter employees indicate just how sincerely conservatives take this secondary understanding as a matter of principle rather than rhetoric.

The fight over Twitters future is not really about free speech, but the political agenda the platform may end up serving. As Americans are more and more reliant on a shrinking number of wealthy individuals and companies for services, conservatives believe having a sympathetic billionaire acquire Twitter means one less large or influential corporation the Republican Party needs to strongarm into serving its purposes. Whatever Musk ends up doing, this possibility is what the right is actually celebrating. Free speech is a disingenuous attempt to frame what is ultimately a political conflict over Twitters usage as a neutral question about civil liberties, but the outcome conservatives are hoping for is one in which conservative speech on the platform is favored and liberal speech disfavored.

Read: Elon Musk already showed us how hell run Twitter

Conservatives maintain they have been subject to censorship by social-media companies for years, either by the imposition of terms of service they complain are unfairly punitive to the right or by bans imposed on particular users. There is ample evidence though, that social-media networks consistently exempt conservative outlets from their own rules to avoid political backlash, a fear seldom displayed when it comes to throttling left-wing content. And despite the right-wing perception of liberal bias on Twitter, an internal audit found that the sites algorithms amplify right-leaning political content more than left-leaning content. The evidence suggests that for all their outrage, conservatives consistently receive preferential treatment from social-media platforms, but are so cavalier about disregarding the terms of service that sometimes they get banned anyway.

Nevertheless, it shouldnt be surprising that many conservatives still complain that they are being censored even as these platforms algorithms continue to favor right-wing content. Indeed, the success of these complaints explains their persistenceif conservatives stopped complaining, the favorable treatment might cease. Musk is a sympathetic audience, even if that does not necessarily determine the direction Twitter will take under his ownership.

Liberal users on Twitter have greeted the news of Musks pending acquisition of the platform with everything from indifference to despair, while conservative reactions run the gamut from optimistic to worshipful, with some right-wing praise of Musk echoing the unending North Korean style flattery of the Trump years. For his part, Musk has said his priority is freedom of speech, a framing that some mainstream media outlets have credulously repeated.Musks subsequent tweets, stating that Twitter should ban only illegal content and that If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect, suggest that he has not thought all that much about the issue. The state broadly banning certain forms of expression is a much greater infringement on free speech than the moderation policies on a private platform, which anyone can choose not to use.

Every major right-wing Twitter alternative has imposed moderation policies while presenting itself as a free speech alternative to Twitter; most comically, posting disparaging comments about Trump originally violated the terms of service of Trumps own app, Truth Social, which itself continues to ban filthy content, harassment, language that is abusive or racist, and profanity. The moderation of privately owned platforms is itself a form of protected speech; Musks ownership of Twitter simply means he will get to decide what those policies are.

And thats precisely the point. Users on both the left and the right assume that during Musks tenure, Twitters policies will amplify conservative content and throttle left-leaning content. Both sides suspect that Twitters moderation policies regarding harassment will be altered to allow users to more frequently employ disparaging language about religious and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ people. The extent of these changes depends on the balance between Musks financial concerns and his ideological ones. Right-wing alternatives to Twitter have failed to take off because conservatives want to make liberals miserable, not build a community in which there are no libs left to own. If conservatives successfully drive their targets off Twitter, or if the network becomes an unusable cesspool, it will become similarly worthless, both financially and politically. Social media platforms attempts to deal with harassment and disinformation have less to do with liberal political influence than making their platforms useful to advertisers.

Derek Thompson: Elon Musk buying Twitter is weird, chaotic, and a little bit awesome

The fact that conservative concerns about Big Tech vanish the second a sympathetic billionaire buys a social-media platform, however, illustrates the shallowness of their complaints about the power of Silicon Valley. Conservatives are not registering their concern over the consolidation of corporate power so much as they are trying to ensure that consolidation serves their interests. Put simply, conservatives hope that Twitter will now become a more willing vehicle for right-wing propaganda. Even if the platform tilts further in their direction, they will be motivated to continue to insist they are being censoredtheir criticisms likely exempting Musk himself in favor of attacking Twitters white-collar workers, whom conservatives paradoxically perceive as the elite while praising their billionaire bosses as populist heroes. The insincerity of right-wing populism is represented by the fact that such populists find it preferable to be ruled by ideologically sympathetic barons than share a democracy with people who might put their pronouns in their email signatures.

In Republican-controlled Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis boasts of punishing Disney for its opposition to recent legislation forcing LGBTQ teachers to remain in the closet on the job. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned of serious consequences if the partys corporate benefactors continued to issue anodyne statements in opposition to GOP legislation aimed at disenfranchising Democratic constituencies. The Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate cash in American elections bears McConnells name, but apparently money qualifies as constitutionally protected speech only when that money can be relied upon to serve the Republican Party. As concerned as they might be about social-media moderation, conservatives are currently engaged, along with this kind of strong-arming, in the largest campaign of state censorship since the second Red Scare.

Conservative propagandists have represented their demand that corporate America advance the interests of the Republican Party as a populist break with Big Business, when it is simply an ultimatum: Serve us, or suffer. The current ideological vanguard of the conservative movement isnt breaking with business, but with democracy, seeking to keep labor weak, the state captive, and corporate power and religious institutions subservient to its demands. Money is speech, as long as you fund our interests. You have the right to vote, as long as you vote Republican. You have freedom of speech, as long as you say what the party would like you to say.

Corporate consolidation has made the Republican Partys turn to authoritarianism much easier. Liberals focusing on how Musks acquisition of Twitter might affect their experience on the platform should look at the bigger picture. Corporate America has filled the void in civil society left by the weakness of organized labor, leaving a tiny number of extremely wealthy people with outside influence. All the right-wing populist rhetoric in America is geared not toward weakening this influence but toward harnessing it.

Many media outlets have curiously described Musk as a free-speech defender, a term Musk enthusiasts have interpreted as a euphemism for someone with a high tolerance for bigotry against historically marginalized communities. But Musk has been perfectly willing to countenance the punishment of those engaging in speech he opposes. Tesla, for example, was disciplined by the National Labor Relations Board for firing a worker who was attempting to organize a union. Similarly, Amazons Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, but his commitment to free speech falters when it comes to unionizing the warehouse workers who are essential to his business.

Business moguls tend to be big on freedom of speech in this more colloquial sense, when it comes to the kind of speech that doesnt hurt their bottom line. When it comes to organizing their workforces, however, a form of speech that could act as a check against their power and influence, that tolerance for free speech melts away. Workers fearful of how their wealthy bosses intend to use that power should take that reality into consideration.

Visit link:

Elon Musk Isn't Buying Twitter to Defend Free Speech - The Atlantic

The Importance of Freedom of Speech – Center for Global …

Post by: Katrina Sumner

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

The truth of this statement regarding barbarous acts was demonstrated again last week by the beheading of a beloved history teacher in Paris. The teacher was killed in broad daylight near his school in what appears to be retaliation for a lesson he taught on freedom of speech. French President Macron said the teacher was murdered, for teaching students freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe. His murder has shocked and outraged thousands who took to the streets all across France to express their support for the slain educator.

The teachers murder is yet another example of why the freedom of speech is to be cherished and protected. While it is important for nations to safeguard freedom of speech, it is also important that individuals recognize that others have the right to speak freely without being subjected to violence or death.

Sometimes people speak disparagingly about freedom of speech as if it is no longer to be cherished. This liberty is as precious today as it ever has been. It is encouraging to see nations take steps to secure liberties like the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief to their people. For example, in July 2020, Sudan repealed its apostasy laws making the changing of ones religion no longer a death penalty offense in that country.

Freedom of speech is an important human right. People should not have to live in fear of death for exercising it. Our goal as individuals should be to embrace our own right to freedom of expression while respecting that others have this right, as well.

This post was written by a Center for Global JusticeStudent Staff member. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

See more here:

The Importance of Freedom of Speech - Center for Global ...

Elon Musk, Twitters next owner, provides his definition of free speech – Ars Technica

Aurich Lawson | Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Elon Musk has claimed he is buying Twitter in order to protect free speech. But what does Musk mean by "free speech"? Musk provided a somewhat vague answer in a tweet on Tuesday, one day after striking a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion. (The sale to Musk is pending and needs shareholder approval to be completed.)

Musk's statement, which he made the pinned tweet on his Twitter profile, said the following:

By "free speech," I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

There are multiple ways to interpret Musk's statement as it relates to United States law, particularly the First Amendment. One interpretation is that Musk doesn't need to change Twitter at all to prevent "censorship that goes far beyond the law."

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The wording prevents the government from restricting speech, but courts have ruled that it does not prevent private companies from doing so.

In fact, judges have ruled that private companies like Twitter have a First Amendment right to moderate content. Both Florida and Texastried to enact laws that would force social networks like Twitter and Facebook to scale back their content moderation. Judges blocked both state laws from taking effect, ruling that the laws violate the companies' First Amendment rights to moderate their platforms.

In that sense, Twitter's content moderationincluding restricting tweets and banning certain accountsalready "matches the law" on free speech in the US. But Musk clearly thinks Twitter's content moderation is often a violation of free speech. His statement that free speech on Twitter should "match the law" may thus mean he thinks Twitterlike the US Congressshould not impose rules and policies that Musk deems to be "censorship."

US law doesn't say that Twitter must avoid such rules and policies, so Musk seems to want free speech that goes beyond what US law requires. Musk could achieve his goal by changing Twitter's policies on what types of content are banned and by changing the algorithms that Twitter uses to promote or limit the visibility of certain tweets.

Of course, free speech laws vary by country, with the US being notable for not having many government-imposed limits on people speaking their mind. Twitter faces different laws around the worldChina blocks Twitter, for example. In Europe, Twitter will face a new set of rules on moderating illegal and harmful content.

Musk's statement that "if people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect" doesn't match the reality of countries that impose significant limits on free speech. Repressive governments that highly restrict speech generally aren't doing so because the people they govern have "ask[ed] government to pass laws to that effect." Examples include China's extensive Internet censorship system and Russia's crackdown on news coverage of Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Musk recently suggested he would defy governments that demand speech restrictions, writing that "Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."

But Musk's new statement defining free speech as "that which matches the law" suggests a different approach in which he'd be willing to restrict speech in any country where the government requires him to do so. Using Musk's explanation of free speech, a government law that prohibits certain kinds of speech is just "the will of the people."

View original post here:

Elon Musk, Twitters next owner, provides his definition of free speech - Ars Technica

Bill on the protection of freedom of speech on social media – JD Supra

On 1 February 2021, the Polish Ministry of Justice published a bill on the Protection of the Freedom of Speech on Social Media. The bills aim is to provide a legal framework to protect social media users from platform owners arbitrary decisions to delete their accounts or their posted content. Failure to comply with the obligations as set out in the bill can result in fines amounting to up to PLN 50,000,000 (approx. EUR 11,075,000).

The bill concerns social media platforms (defined as services provided by electronic means which allow users to share any content with other users or the public) which are used in Poland by at least one million registered users. This definition is quite ambiguous since it is unclear whether it covers all websites that allow its users to publish content, e.g. blogs. Also, the bill does not indicate how to determine the number of users, especially whether one should take into account all accounts including fake accounts, or accounts set up by foreigners.

The bill imposes several new obligations on the owners of these social media platforms. In particular, these platforms will be obliged to:

Those users who are dissatisfied with the way the platform has handled their complaint will be able to lodge a complaint with the Council for the Freedom of Speech (the public authority appointed by the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament)) within seven days of receiving the platforms decision. The Council will then have seven days to decide whether to order the platform to restore access to the profile or content. The case will be resolved based on the evidence provided by both the user (together with the complaint) and the platform (within 24 hours from the receipt of the information that the complaint has been filed with the Council). The platform will then have 24 hours to comply with the Councils decision. The platform, or user, will be able to appeal against the Councils decision to the court within 30 days of receiving the decision.

The bill also imposes on all providers of services by electronic means an obligation to store personal data of their users for 12 months following the day of making the connection (this term is not further clarified in the bill). Should any criminal content be found, the public prosecutor will have the authority to ask the service provider, or its representative in Poland, to provide them with information, in particular concerning the users data and publications on the online social media platform. In addition, if it is found that the content disclosed on the online social medial platform contains publication/s with pornographic content involving minors, content that praises or incites the committing of acts of a terrorist nature, or that further access to this publication creates the risk of causing significant damage or causing effects which are difficult to reverse, the prosecutor can immediately issue a decision ordering the service provider to prevent access to this content.

The bill also stipulates a new type of lawsuit the so called "blind lawsuit", i.e. the possibility of filing a lawsuit for the protection of personal rights without specifying the defendant's data which is presently necessary in order to file a statement of claim. According to the bill, the indication of the URL where the offensive content was published, the date and time of publication, and the name of the user's profile or login will be sufficient to successfully bring about a claim.

The bill was sent to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister on 22 January 2021 with the request that it be entered into the list of legislative works of the Council of Ministers. Once the bill is published on the list of legislative works it will be referred for arrangements, public consultations, and opinions. The bill will certainly evolve in the further stages of the legislative work.

Read more from the original source:

Bill on the protection of freedom of speech on social media - JD Supra



12345...102030...