Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Theres a human cost when the government fails to protect freedom. Its a cost Im familiar with. For almost six years now, Ive been in court with officials from my home state of Colorado who are trying to take away my freedom of speech and force me to say something I dont believe.

Here between Memorial Day and Independence Day, Ive been thinking of those who chose to pay an even greater cost to preserve freedom. The men and women we honor at such times set aside, and in many cases sacrifice, their lives to preserve the freedoms of all people. My family has seen a lot of those sacrifices, across many decades, and Im especially grateful for that legacy. More than that, though, Ive learned from it.

My father's father, Stanley, served in the Army during World War II. He was honorably discharged when he contracted rheumatic fever in the service, and that compromised his health to the point he couldnt carry out his duties. That was not the end of his sacrifice, though. The effects of the fever eventually killed him. My father was 16 years old when Grandpa Stanley died. As a little boy, all that death meant to him was that he had lost his father.

Grandpa Stanley had two brothers. His wife, Helen, had five. All of those brothers served overseas during the war. Thats a lot of sacrifice for one combined family, but it wasnt unusual for that time and their community. They knew how precious freedom was and knew it was worth fighting for.

My mothers mother was married twice. Her second husband was Frank. He served as an Army corporal in the Korean War. He and I shared our birthday. He died the day after I turned 3 years old. Every Memorial Day, we visit his grave at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver.

And then there was Paul, or Grandpa Ziggy, my grandmothers first husband. He gave 25 years of his life to the service, first in the Army, then in the Air Force. He retired as a captain, after fighting in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Among other things, he served as a guard at the Nuremberg trials, just after World War II.

My grandfathers made their sacrifices, of time, of distance, and of health, because they believed in our country. They were honored to represent a government whose fundamental principles they shared. Those principles included the belief that every life has dignity and that every person has inalienable rights and should be able to live free from government coercion. Back then, those truths seemed as real to most of our elected officials as they did to men like Grandpa Stanley, Frank, and Ziggy.

I inherited my grandfathers great love for this country and its freedoms, but I also inherited a very different culture and very different state officials. My grandfathers had to fight the forces of other nations that threatened those freedoms. Today, Im having to stand against the very state officials who are supposed to be protecting our freedoms.

I am a graphic artist and website designer, the owner of my own design studio. I am also a Christian seeking to live with love and grace toward all, according to the teachings of my faith. I have a special interest in designing websites for weddings, but Colorado officials say that should I offer these websites, Ill have to design websites celebrating marriages other than between one man and one woman. That would mean expressing through my custom designs a message that conflicts with my religious beliefs.

Colorado and a federal court both acknowledge that I have exercised no bias in how I treat my clients. I work with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT. That court has also determined that graphic art and websites like mine are speech and are clearly protected by the First Amendment. Yet the court said that Colorado can nonetheless force me to create custom designs and speak messages about marriage that violate my beliefs.

And not just me. Under current law, these officials can compel other citizens to communicate messages they dont agree with, too.

Veterans like my grandfathers made their sacrifices so that the freedoms they cherished could be passed down to their children and grandchildren. But today, the very government they defended is failing in its duty to preserve free speech for all of us.

Thats why Ive chosen to take a stand one that is taking me to the Supreme Court. I want my childrens children to know what it means to be free. I am asking the justices to affirm our Constitutions commitment to ensuring our government never forces its citizens to speak against their deepest beliefs, even if we hold different opinions.

I wish to honor my grandfathers and the countless other men and women who have served this great country, standing nobly for freedom. And Im humbled and inspired by their example, as I stand for freedom of speech for all people.

Lorie Smith is the owner of 303 Creative in Colorado. She is being represented at the Supreme Court this fall by Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal).

Read more:
As my case heads to the Supreme Court, I am choosing to embrace a legacy of freedom - Washington Examiner

Over the last few weeks, I have received letters, calls, messages and other complaints about a wide variety of topics loosely related to freedom of speech.

In Curry County, the complaints were mostly about the the Chetco Community Library baord's decision not to remove books some find offensive. I have also heard from people who think I should not let Court Boice share his views, even though they are almost always done in a public meeting.

In my mind, these complaints all boil down to freedom of speech. A lot of people talk about the issue, the vast majority say they support it, but it seems few really understand what freedom of speech is.

First of all, freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government is not allowed to create rules that limit freedom of speech. Private companies, including this one, can limit what they allow their employees to say and can limit what others say on our platform. And we do that. We have rules that prohibit others from using our opinion pages to take shots at private companies and private individuals.

Other than that, we allow a lot of different views to be expressed. If you don't like whoever the current president is, you can share that view. If you don't like what your local government is doing, you can share that view, too. If you are strongly pro-life, or pro-choice, bring it on. We are not going to censor what our readers think because others might be offended.

This whole country was built on arguing - whether we were to have an elected king or a president, life-longers or a temporary-servants. One of the coolest parts of the U.S. government is the peaceful transition of power - to the extent that even if the elected official is a completely against everything you hold near and dear, the power transfers without call to arms. If you read history, all the presidents and elected officials have had people, with every voice they had from every rooftop, completely and unequivocally oppose them. Even John Wilks Booth thought he was a hero, in his mind, because there was such opposition to Lincoln. The debates on the floor of the Continental Congress were barely short of violent, but the case to unite was greater than the case to be right.

Secondly, when it comes to freedom of speech, the Consitutional protections are not there to protect those who want to say friendly, happy things. Freedom of speech protects the most vile, hateful, evil speech out there. If you remember, several years ago, a small group from Westboro Baptist Church was protesting at funerals of fallen service members. The signs the church members held said the most spiteful, hateful things imaginable. Yet, every attempt to quiet them was overturned because free speech equals vile speech.

That doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for speech. While the government can't limit speech, many private businesses have rightly held employees to account for things they have said, written and shared. And that is perfectly legal.

That isn't always popular, but I support speech with little restraint, even if that speech offends me and targets me. Putting limits on speech is a slippery slope, that once began can spiral out of control quickly. Do we as a country really want people being arrested because they have an opinion outside of the norm? If you say yes, who gets to decide what opinion is allowed?

Under a President Joe Biden, what is allowed might look very different than what is allowed under a President Donald Trump. What if the decided opinion completely opposes your own and you are never allowed to air different thought?

We appreciate our readers, and we value their input. We don't want to lose a single one. But we understand that embracing free speech will sometimes mean others get offended. We will not censure or remove writers who say offensive things within our limits.

My hope is if you are offended, rather than getting angry, sit down and send me a letter with your own views. Use this space to share your thoughts. Who knows, maybe you can change some minds.

Read more from the original source:
Column: Freedom of speech trumps the right to not be offended - Curry Coastal Pilot

UPDATE, 11:58 AM PT: We ask ladies and gentlemen, that you hold Mr. Depp accountable for his actions, Amber Heards lawyer Ben Rottenborn exclaimed today in the final moments of Johnny Depps $50 million defamation trial against his ex-wife. Stand up for victims of domestic abuse everyone. Stand up for freedom of speech. Give Amber Heard her life back.

With less than ten minutes left in their closing statement allotment, Heards defense team went for the constitutional juggler with the very last word in the lurid case that has captivated America and the world over the past nearly two months.

Its simple, if you believe that Depp was abusive to Amber one time ..then your job is very easy, Rottenborn said to the jury in the Virginia courtroom. You can not only deny Mr. Depps claim, but affirm Ambers counterclaim

Directly following Heard being repeatedly called a liar and playing the role of her life and Depps vile communications being swept under the rug as a dark, ugly humor, in the plaintiffs rebuttal from attorney Camille Vasquez, the defenses last stand was the definition of short and sharp, as it had to be to have any impact.

Spilling over six weeks in a Virginia courtroom, this widely covered trial all stems from Depps March 2019 lawsuit against Heard over the late 2018 Washington Post op-ed she penned. In that piece for the Jeff Bezos-owned broadsheet, Heard called herself a public figure representing domestic abuse and detailed the blast radius that she and other women face.

While he said nothing to this effect during the couples 2016 restraining order-filled divorce, Depp has insisted over the last three years that he never abused Heard. The fired Fantastic Beasts actor actually claims that he was the victim of abuse in the relationship Proving unsuccessful in getting the lawsuit dismissed, Heard filed a $100 million countersuit in the summer of 2020. That countersuit came just a few months before Depp proved unsuccessful in his UK libel suit against The Sun tabloid for calling him a wife beater.

Casting off from the closing arguments and final instructions from Judge Penny Azcarte after six weeks of trial, the seven-person jury now goes into deliberation on the defamation case. Check out the jury form they will take with them as a guide here.

Even though Depps Brown Ruddick legal team provided the sharpest POV for most of the trial, Heards defense went hard for the First Amendment in their closing. Perhaps too little, too late amidst the lurid accusations of physical, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse and parade of less than stellar witnesses that have dominated the trial since its April 11 start, the power of the defenses 11th hour pivot now rests with the jury.

Of course, this will not end regardless if Depp triumphs in his defamation case or Heard wins with her $100 million counterclaim. Outside the Fairfax County Courthouse, the reputations of both parties are in tatters. Inside the court system, you can almost bet the Black Pearl therell be an appeal. For the record, Depp has unsuccessfully attempted to mount an appeal in his loss in his 2020 UK libel suit against the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Sun.

Now we wait.

PREVIOUSLY, 9:24 AM PT: This whole case is about blaming Amber Heard for things she didnt do, the Aquaman stars lawyer told a Virginia courtroom today in closing arguments in the $50 million defamation trial from Johnny Depp against his former wife.

But thats what Mr. Depp does, thats what hes always done, started attorney Ben Rottenborn for the defense to the jury and Judge Penney Azcarate on Friday. Blame other people, refuse to take accountability. But the problem for him here is hes running head long into the United States Constitution.

How To Watch The Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial: Livestream Link & Trial Schedule

Most of what you have heard in this trial, you do not need to make a decision on, a mainly measured Rottenborn asserted after six weeks of heinous abuse claims and highly explicated testimony recounted by both Depp and Heard, various staffers, doctors, family members, friends and well paid hangers-on. Rottenborn termed the whole case and trial as victim blaming at its most disgusting on the part of the Depp and his Brown Ruddick lawyers.

Having stumbled into various traps by Depps team and seemingly losing the plot over and over, Heards team today came out with precision on Americans sacred document, finally.

Does the First Amendment give Ms. Heard the right to write the words she wrote in this article on December 18, 2018? Rottenborn asked rhetorically. Should someone be able to write an article like that in the United States of America without going through Hell? he went on to say of the focus of the trial.

Ladies and gentleman, let me be very clear, if Amber was abused by Mr. Depp even one time, then she wins, Rottenborn added, calling it ridiculous Depp assertion that he never abused his Rum Diary co-star. They are trying to trick you to believe that Amber has to be perfect to win. Actually, if he fails to prove he didnt abuse Amber one time, she wins.

Depp sued Heard in March 2019 over a December 18, 2018 Washington Post op-ed the actress wrote about becoming a public figure representing domestic abuse. Though the op-end never mentioned Depp by name, the past Oscar nominee claimed it devastated his already waning career. As his attorneys have proclaimed over and over in the April 11 starting trial, Depp also said back in 2019 that he was in fact the one who was abused in the relationship. As was brought up this morning, those claims by Depp are an apparent contradiction to what both sides said publicly in their temporary restraining order filled 2016 divorce.

Characterizing Depp as vindictive on Friday, Rottenborn said the actor will do everything he can to destroy your life, destroy your career.

Just because people might read the article and remember that Amber Heard used to be married to Johnny Depp and she accused him of abuse, that doesnt mean that she designed and intended defamatory implications in writing about herself, Rottenborn also noted in the opening of the defenses closing argument, which are expected to last several hours today.

Having failed to get the case dismissed or moved out of Virginia, Heard in 2020 countersued for $100 million. That countersuit came months before Depps UK libel case against The Sun tabloid for calling him a wife beater proved dramatically unsuccessful in November 2020.

This is the real Johnny Depp, the lawyer said, noting the sexual assault claims and reading out and showing numerous texts from the former Pirates of the Caribbean star to friends like The Avengers Paul Bettany and staffers threating death, sexual violence and global humiliation against Heard. Audio tapes of self-describing monster Depp screaming at Heard that she is a f*cking c*nt and a disturbing 2016 video of an enraged Depp smashing up a kitchen bellowing motherf*cker were also played for the jury for maximum impact following the scorched Earth closing argument from the plaintiffs legal team. Thats abuse, Rottenborn said, noting Depps habit of snickering when such evidence was shown in the Fairfax County Courthouse.

Briefly listing off all the accusations and dirty laundry that has stunk up most of this circus of a trial, Rottenborn exclaimed none of that is in the article. He added: It would be a very different article if shed written about what she suffered, what she told you about the past six weeks.

The facts are absolute overwhelming of abuse, Rottenborn reiterated near the end of his presentation, which was momentarily interrupted by an Amber alert going off on numerous courtroom attendees phones. Any damage to Mr. Depps career is self-caused.

Rottenborn will be succeed in the courtroom by his fellow defense attorney Elaine Bredehoft, who will argue the counterclaims. After that, Depps side will have an hour for rebuttal and then Heards team will have another hour themselves to address the jury. If all goes to schedule, later this afternoon, the seven-person jury will go behind closed doors to consider their verdict.

In theory, we could see a verdict today, before the Memorial Day long weekend begins. However, but in all likelihood, deliberations will continue into next week after the holiday.

Follow this link:
Amber Heards Lawyer Asks Jury To Stand Up For Freedom Of Speech In Final Words In Johnny Depps $50M Defamation Trial Against Ex-Wife; Deliberations...

NEW DELHI -SENSING the growing opposition to the most contentious provision in the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, the Select Committee on the Bill has inserted the qualification " reasonable " before the list of restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression so as to place in the hands of the judiciary the power to determine whether a restrictive legislation is " reasonable " or not.

The Committee's report was presented to Parliament today by the Prime Minister. There are as many as six minutes of dissent appended to the report, the more important among them being those of Dr S. P. Mookerjee and Pandit Kunzru.

The Committee has also, for the sake of clarification, recommended the addition of a new clause (4) to Article 15 where it thinks it would be preferable to refer to the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens," instead of referring to the educational, economic .or social advancement of any backward class of citizens."

While some apprehensions have been expressed in respect of this amendment, the Committee feels this provision " is not likely to be, and cannot indeed be, misused by any Government for perpetuating any class discrimination against the spirit of the Constitution, or for treating non-backward classes as backward for the purpose of conferring privileges on them."

ANOTHER CHANGE

Another change proposed by the Select Committee relates to future legislation providing, for acquisition of estates. In this clause the Committee has made two amendments- one, to the effect that wher6 the law is made by a State Legislature, it should be reserved for the consideration of the President and should receive his assent before the law could claim the protection given to it by the new Article. The other amendment merely seeks the definition of estate to cover existing laws which have been enacted in Hindi or Urdu and where the equivalent of estate in the local language has been used.

The only other Change made by the Committee is that even where the first session of Parliament or State Legislature after a general election happens to be the second session in that year there should be provision for an address by the President or the Governor. The original amendment made provision for the address only for the first session of each year.

MINUTES OF DISSENT

P.T.I. adds:

Mrs Durga Bai in her minute of dissent has suggested the power to restrict the freedom of speech and expression proposed to be given under the new clause 19(2) should be vested in Parliament alone, to the exclusion of the State Legislatures.

She says: " I feel there is considerable force in the criticism that in regulating the freedom of speech and expression, uniformity of laws can be secured only if the legislative decisions are taken by Parliament. Further the present amendment authorizes the curtailment of this freedom in the interest, inter alia of friendly relations with foreign States which obviously is a subject falling entirely and exclusively in the legislative ambit of the Union. The substitution of the word ' Parliament ' for the word ' State ' in the clause will ensure to Parliament the exclusive power of abridging the fundamental right of freedom of speech in the plenitude of its wisdom."

The argument that the change suggested would entail revision or interference with the legislative lists, she says, has no basis. After referring to the difference provided in the Constitution for amendment for the legislative lists and certain other articles and an amendment of the fundamental rights chapter, she says: " It is obvious no clause on the fundamental rights can he amended without restricting or enlarging the scope of the legislative power of Parliament or the State legislatures*

PUBLIC APPREHENSIONS

Pointing out the many instances in the fundamental rights chapter where Parliament had been given exclusive jurisdiction, she says " On the other hand, to include the new items, public order, maintenance of friendly relations with foreign States, does justify the apprehension that these extensions may result m serious encroachments on the liberty of person. and the Press, specially at the time of elections. There are going to be tens of thousands of polling stations and even after the general election, there will be about 100 by-elections every year. It will be open to any State legislature to abridge the freedom of the Press and the public and then take the chance of being overruled by Parliament. "

No other reason can be or has been assigned for opposing this suggestion which, I believe, will go a long way towards allaying public apprehensions so vigorously and vehemently voiced by powerful sections of the Press that the extensive power of control over the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression might be abused by some of the State legislatures. There is no more effective remedy for dispelling such apprehensions than the conferment upon Parliament the exclusive right 'to exercise that control in the manner suggested by me."

NO CONVINCING CASE

Pandit II. N. Kunzru in his minute of dissent says Government have not established " any clear and convincing case for the proposed amendments." The Constitution had been in force only for 16 months and general elections would be taking place in a few months and yet Government " propose to force these amendments to the Constitution through Parliament immediately."

It is a matter of deep regret." he continues, " that Government should not have given to the Committee full information in regard to the laws that had become void as a result of the recent Judicial pronouncements and that are to be validated though they were repeatedly asked to place before the Committee a clear picture of the position created by the decisions."

Pandit Kunzru has recalled that in the case of " Brig. Bhushan vs the Delhi State," the Supreme Court had held there could be no pre-censorship of news while in the case of " Romesh Thapar vs. Madras State." the order banning the entry and circulation of The Cross Roads into Madras in the interests of public order were considered unconstitutional.

" Is it the intention of Government to validate the exercise of these powers by the State?" he asked.

After referring to the fact that in Master Tara Singh's case Sections 124 A and 153 A of the Penal Code had been declared ultra vires, Pandit Kunzru says, " The history of Section 124 A is well known. It was passed in its present form in 1898 to curb the activities of Indian patriots. While in England sedition is treated as a minor offence, in India it is regarded as a major offence for which severe punishment can be imposed. Now that India is free it should find no place in a statute book in its existing form."

IMPORTANT CHANGE

Welcoming the use of the word " reasonable "' before " restrictions," he says it introduces * a very important change " and places in the hands of the judiciary the power to determine whe. ther a restrictive legislation is reasonable or not.

Referring to the retrospective validation of the laws, he says " Government should give an assurance that no one will be prosecuted for having acted in contravention of these laws while they were invalid."

In regard to the amendment to article 15, Pandit Kunzru says: " I think a central authority should determine which classes should be regarded as backward so that a uniform standard may be observed in respect of the specification of such classes pending the report of the Commission referred to in article 340 of the Constitution. A provision similar to the one contained in 341 and 342 of the Constitution is necessary to enable the President to decide which classes should be regarded as backward."

Mookerjee'S CRITICISM

Dr S. P. Mookerjee in his minute of dissent has questioned the need for the further restrictions on the freedom of speech. He has supported Mrs Durga Bal's suggestion the power to impose such restrictions should be vested only in Parliament.

Dr Mookerjee says the onus of proving the need for changes had not been " satisfactorily discharged " by the proposers of the amendments. The procedure adopted indicates " how the Constitution is being denied its inherent sanctity and sacredness."

The main ' reason advanced for the amendments was that the judiciary had pronounced its opinion on certain laws which were disfavoured by the Government in power. Though the members of the Select Committee repeatedly asked for it, they had not been furnished with the list of laws which had been declared invalid and which created dif6culties for Government.

The judiciary having been clothed with the duty of ensuring that the laws conform to the Constitution " nothing should be done to impair, the independence of the judiciary or To lower its prestige." Instead of bringing the old " repressive and retrograde " laws in line with the fundamental rights of the Constitution, " we are following the strange procedure of adhering to such reactionary laws and changing our fundamental rights."

WHOLESOME CHANGE

Welcoming the use of the words * reasonable restrictions " in the proposed Article 19(2), Dr Mookerjee says it is "a wholesome change." making 19(2) Justiciable and " I do not wish to minimize the importance of this change in the protection of civil liberty." The existing restrictions on the right to free speech and expression are " more than sufficiently restrictive " and there should be no fresh additions to these the only lacuna, if at all, is that limitations did not cover " incitement to violence " and this might be removed, but there is no justification for " forging fresh fetters." The term " public order " used in the amendment is vague and should be subject to " the clear and present danger test," namely, that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.

FOREIGN STATES

Dr Mookerjee says there is no justification for bringing in the unrestricted provision of "friendly relations with foreign States." At the most, the phrase should not extend beyond defamatory attacks on heads of foreign States or similar acts. Though the Government agreed to this principle, it is not prepared to make it clear and unambiguous in the Constitution itself.

Pointing out that the State legislatures, under the proposed amendments. would be able to exercise powers at protecting the rights and liberties of the people. resulting in " conflicting approaches " Its different States. Dr Mookerjee says: " These laws, at least those relating to the restrictions of fundamental rights, should be framed by Parliament and not by the State legislatures."

Referring to the retrospective character of the amendment, he says: " This is most undesirable and may theoretically clothe the Government with the authority to launch prosecutions for alleged offences committed during a period when the laws were void according to court decisions." The Prime Minister and the Home Minister, he adds, have assured this was not the Governments intention and instructions would be issued to the State Governments accordingly, if necessary. " Still the dangerous implications of such retrospective legislation cannot be minimized."

NEW ARTICLES 31-A & B

In regard to the new Article 31-A and 31-B. Dr Mookerjee says the Patna Act had been declared invalid by the High Court as a violation of Article 14. If the Government appealed to the Supreme Court, and if it gave a verdict not acceptable to the Government, that could have been a justification for amending the Constitution. But nothing had as yet happened to justify the taking away of the jurisdiction of the judiciary in this sweeping manner. At least the wording of Article 31-A should be so modified that the responsibility to see that the provisions of Article 31 were complied with, should vest in the President.

As regards 31-B, some of the laws proposed to be validated are pending before the courts. To include in the Constitution itself particular laws which had been deliberately declared invalid by the judiciary was " an extraordinary procedure." The laws should at least be carefully tested again by the President to see that they do not violate the provisions of the Constitution. Only thereafter should they be declared valid.

So long as they had a written constitution and fundamental rights, they have to abide by its provisions No Government could afford to brush them aside or hurriedly seek their alteration on the plea that judicial interpretations are not to its liking. " A better and more honourable course would have been not to have a written constitution at all and make Parliament the supreme body."

MINUTES OF DISSENT

Three members, Prof. K. T. Shah. Sardar Hukam Singh and Mr Naziruddin Ahmad, have submitted a joint minute of dissent and also separate ones.

They say the experience gained in the working of the Constitution was too short and too few to warrant the conclusion that an amendment was needed.

Amendment of the Constitution by the present Parliament was open to question on grounds of propriety if not of constitutionality. With elections barely six months off the proposed amendment could hardly be said to be in the best traditions of constitutional progress, democratic ideas or of effective popular sovereignty.

The three members have also voiced the complaint that the Committee did not have sufficient material before them and they did not also have the text of the laws which were to be validated.

Amendment to Article 15 was " objectionable as being incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.' Though the entire population of the country could be said to be backward, certain so-called backward classes were being selected for special treatment " Those in power arid authority have done nothing hitherto to implement any important article in the chapter on the directives of policy, which breathe the spirit of the Constitution, even though somewhat asthmatically."

NEW RESTRICTIONS

Far more objectionable, they say, is the proposed amendment to Article 19. At least three new categories have been introduced, while those already in the article have been in some respects materially modified. In the amendment as it now stood the term " reasonable is added before " restrictions." To this extent it is a welcome improvement. " We, however, see no justification for ' including ' friendly relations ' with foreign States to restrict, however reasonably, freedom of speech and expression." The Press in India as a whole has shown no evidence to justify this wholly gratuitous and unwarrantable restriction on civil liberties.

As regards the proposed new Article, 31-A, special consideration is shown to owners of landed property, namely, reserving a Bill for consideration by the President and for his assent, it is sought to abolish land ownership or, corresponding rights in land. But no such consideration will be shown to any Bill aimed at restricting civil liberty. particularly in regard to freedom of speech and expression.

Mr Naziruddin Ahmad, in his additional minute of dissent, says: " Up to 8-45 a.m. on May 25 I have not, and so far as I could ascertain, no other member of the Select Committee has seen the actual text of the Bill as finally settled by the Select Committee after several revisions. This has acted as an additional handicap in the way of drawing up any accurate and up-to-date dissentient note."

THE ECONOMICALLY BACKWARD

Mr Ahmed has suggested that besides the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens provided for in the new Article 15(4), the advancement of the economically backward classes also should be provided.

Referring to the argument of Dr Ambedkar in the House, that the Supreme Court should have imported the principle of " police powers of the State " in interpreting the Constitution. Mr Ahmad has said that the Court had correctly interpreted the Constitution. The police powers of the State flowed from the use of the words " due process of law " in the U.S. Constitution, and this had not found a place in the Indian Constitution.

In regard to Article 19(2), the words " incitement to offence " were too vague and go too far. Even under the I.P.C . which had stood the test of over 90 years, mere incitement to offence was not an offence unless it was followed by a criminal act. Only emergency legislations provided for this offence.

Another serious fault in the proposed Article 19(2) was that it empowers legislation to punish defamatory at, tacks on foreign States and also anything which impairs friendly relations with foreign States. The power sought presently went too far and might be used too easily to prohibit and punish ordinary and fair criticism of foreign affairs. Again, any fair and outspoken criticism might be made punishable by law.

Unfortunately, the existing penal and other laws had not been adapted to bring them in line with the Constitution. If this had been done there will be a clearer picture. By reviving the obsolete and dead laws with retrospective effect, their real shape and effect could not be known with any certainty or exactitude.

LAND QUESTION

In regard to the new Article 31-A, Mr Ahmad says the principle of the clause is widely accepted but the crucial test is payment of adequate or proper compensation as admitted by the Prime Minister himself in Parliament. But the revival of all existing laws, whether good or bad in that respect, is being attempted. "

This is utterly expropriatory and shows high-handedness and would serve as a warning to owners of other properties and business of their approaching fate. The result will be widespread panic and uncertainty rendering industrialization of the country a difficult process.

By introducing the Ninth Schedule, reviving all dead and half-dead enactments, irrespective of their propriety or adequacy, " Parliament is asked to put rubber stamp certificates of fitness to them without examining their contents." Some - alarming examples " of injustice and arbitrariness brought to light in the Acts and which should be condemned " outright as outrageous " are going to be " sanctified " by the validation process and it could never be justified on any grounds of principle or policy.

The entire Bill was hastily conceived and was being rushed through Parliament without proper or satisfactory scrutiny by the public.

HUKAM SINGH'S NOTE

Sarder Hukam Singh in his separate minute of dissent has said that the Constitution was made the touchstone to test the laws. Instead of changing the old repressive and defective laws, the Constitution is now sought to be amended. While the use of the word * reasonable " is welcome, the scope of limitations is still too wide.

The amendment proposed to Article 15 indirectly amends Article 20 (2) and this is beyond the scope of the Select Committee. The present amendment will leave very wide scope to the State legislatures and consequently to the executive to corrupt the list of backward classes by including groups that were not backward.

Sarder Hukam Singh has also objected to the amendment to Article 19(6). While he accepted the principle of the State carrying on trade or business, h,(r referred to instances in U.P. and Bombay, where, while bus owners had been deprived of their right to carry on trade, their vehicles had not been taken over. This was a device to get over the clear provisions of law allowing compensation to them. The Allahabad and Bornbay High Courts had given some relief to them. Under the present amendment they would be completely out of court and entirely at the mercy of the executive.

K. T. SHAH'S NOTE

Prof. K. T. Shah, in his minute of dissent, says that Article 31 A by restricting its scope to proprietorial or analogous rights in land as against the scope of Article 31 which extends to landed as well as personal wealth in commerce and industry, creates " a needless and unjustifiable discrimination which is de8nitely against the spirit of the Constitution, aiming at an egalitarian society."

Again, while bills relating to landed rights were to be reserved for consideration of the President, no such safeguards were being provided for the protection of civil liberties when threatened by State legislation.

The proposal to validate all the laws mentioned in the schedule was open to fundamental objection. Not all of them had been declared invalid by courts and none of them had been examined' by the Select Committee. To declare the summarily valid and give them protection en bloc is a dangerous precedent.

The new additions by the Committee to Articles 31-A and 31-B made no provision to guard against the entire purpose of such legislation being defeated by the setting up of smaller and more tenacious landlord or peasant proprietors. Unless the dispossession of large landlords was accompanied by a simultaneous nationalisation of land permitting collective or at least co-operative cultivation, there would be no real benefit from the amendment.

The provision authorizing the summoning of either House of Parliament was not only unnecessary but was likely to pave the way for a presidential dictatorship.

The proposed amendment enabling the appointment of non-citizens to high judicial office in the Union, including the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was objectionable both on grounds of national self-respect as well as the limited number of persons for whom the amendment appears to have been proposed. It was said there were only four non-citizens who would be benefited. "

I see no reason why these persons should not acquire Indian citizenship if they desire to serve this country in such exalted positions," Prof Shah concludes.

Follow the latest breaking news and developments from India and around the world with Hindustan Times' newsdesk. From politics and policies to the economy and the environment, from local issues to national events and global affairs, we've got you covered....view detail

Read more:
HT This Day: May 26, 1951 - CLAUSE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AMENDED - Hindustan Times

Often, people go to therapy because theyre struggling with something and they want help from a professional. They expect the best advice possible anything that will help them heal. But in many cases, they also look for someone who shares their values, someone who will understand where theyre coming from and why theyre hurting.

In Washington state, this kind of well-rounded, values-oriented therapy is illegal for those struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Brian Tingley, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Tacoma, Washington, went to federal court last week to challenge a Washington law that prohibits specific, private, client-counselor conversations about gender identity or sexual orientation. The purpose of the law, according to the Democrats who passed it, is to ban conversion therapy. But the practical effect of the law has been to punish religious therapists and counselors who rely on their faith to guide their conversations with clients.

For more than 20 years, Brian has counseled adults, teenagers, and children who seek his help, and those counselor-client conversations are private certainly not open for the government to censor, Alliance Defending Freedoms Senior Counsel Roger Brooks said. Washingtons counseling censorship law targets people of faith and threatens to stand between Brians clients and the personal counseling goals they choose to pursue with his help. We hope the court will agree that it is unlawful for the state of Washington to ban speech simply because state officials disagree with the viewpoints expressed.

Under Washingtons law, which was passed in 2018, counselors are banned from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity with minor clients if their goal is to change the young persons identity or sexual attraction. The law threatens severe sanctions including substantial fines of $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice, and even loss of his license should Tingley encourage his young clients to pursue anything but total affirmation.

In the complaint, Tingleys attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom said, Washington State seeks to insert itself into the privacy of Plaintiffs counseling room and censor his discussion and exploration of certain ideas with his young clients.

This law not only violates basic privacy rights but is also clearly biased. If Tingley wanted to encourage his client to adopt a gender identity contrary to his biological sex, that would be permissible under this law. But if he wanted to help a young person be more comfortable with a gender identity that matches her physical body, that sort of conversation would be considered illegal.

In other words, the law only bans conversations that support more orthodox views of gender and sexuality. This is harmful because an abundance of research shows many young people who struggle with their sexual orientation or gender identity at a young age become more comfortable and confident in their own skin if given enough time.

Other states with similar laws have found out the hard way that pushing specific views about gender via policy violates the First Amendment. Palm Beach County in Florida had a similar ordinance, and the 11th Circuit held that the ordinance violated Americans right to free speech.

And in New York City, officials were forced to repeal their counseling censorship ordinance and pay $100,000 in attorneys fees and nominal damages after Dr. Dovid Schwartz, an Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist, filed a lawsuit against the city.

Washingtons law violates the First Amendment rights of therapists with traditional views. The state has no business dictating private conversations between clients and therapists. Furthermore, it is advantageous for therapists to have the freedom to encourage their clients to consider all avenues of healing especially when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity issues. Pushing clients to pursue only one lifestyle could be devastating later.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.

More here:
Biased Washington law is a gross violation of therapists' freedom of speech - Washington Examiner

So held Judge Dale Drozd (E.D. Cal.) in Castro v. Clovis Unified School Dist., decided Friday:

Plaintiff is a former Clovis High School student who graduated in 2019. Plaintiff was scheduled to attend his graduation ceremony on May 30, 2019. On that same day, plaintiff posted to his personal Twitter page a picture of another classmate with the caption "nigger." Plaintiff posted the tweet while on the school's campus and during school hours. The classmate featured in the picture plaintiff posted is African American.

Another student saw the tweet and contacted defendant Stephanie Hanksthe site principal of Clovis High Schoolto inform her of the tweet and how it had upset the reporting student. Plaintiff and his parents were called into defendant Hanks' office, and plaintiff was provided with his high school graduation diploma and informed that he would not be permitted to walk at his graduation ceremony as a result of his May 30, 2019 online behavior.

{In his [Complaint], plaintiff alleges that defendants "censored and punished him for exercising his First Amendment right" to communicate with his "personal Nigerian-American friend who consented to Plaintiff's intercultural communication." Plaintiff appears to have alleged in his complaint that the student depicted in his tweet was a friend of his and that his comments should therefore not have been construed as inappropriate. However, plaintiff has presented no evidence on summary judgement supporting this assertion. Moreover, plaintiff's subjective state of mind is irrelevant. Under the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Tinker, the inquiry is simply whether the speech at issue interfered with the rights of other students to be secure and left alone.}

Under the holding in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School. Dist (1969), schools are permitted to restrict student speech in two broad sets of circumstances: if the speech "might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities," or, alternatively, if the speech "collides 'with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.'" "[C]onduct by [a] student, in class or out of it, which for any reasonwhether it stems from time, place, or type of behaviormaterially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

{Given that this case concerns internet postings that occurred on-campus and during school hours, the decision in Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. (2021) does not meaningfully apply here, nor does it alter the court's application of the traditional Tinker framework governing when schools may regulate on-campus disruptive speech.}

The evidence presented by defendants here in moving for summary judgment fails to establish that plaintiff's actions posed a substantial threat of causing a disruption at Clovis High School's graduation ceremony. The only evidence that defendants have come forward with in this regard is a declaration by defendant Hanks in which the principal states that "[b]ased upon [her] professional background and experience, [she] believed that Plaintiff's tweet would cause a disruption before and during the graduation by way of media coverage or a further invasion of rights into other African American students in the graduating class." Although school officials may act prophylactically if it is reasonable under the circumstances, defendants have offered no evidence to support defendant Hanks' expressed concerns. Accordingly, the court cannot conclude on summary judgment that defendants were, as a matter of law, entitled to regulate plaintiff's speech due to the potential for disruption of an on campus graduation ceremony.

Nevertheless, defendants also contend that plaintiff's posting clearly interfered with "the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone." "[T]he precise scope of Tinker's interference with the rights of others language is unclear." That circuit court has held, however, that speech that "is merely offensive to some listener" is not sufficient, and does not fall within Tinker's scope. Although speech that is "merely offensive to others" does not fall within Tinker, it has been observed that "good guidelines exist for determining what constitutes impermissible interference with the rights of other students."

For example, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that sexually harassing conduct directed toward a student violates their right to be secure because it "threaten[s] the individual's sense of physical, as well as emotional and psychological, security." Additionally, in Shen v. Albany Unified Sch. Dist (N.D. Cal. 2017), the district court concluded that a school could punish students for liking and posting racist images and rhetoric online about other students and faculty ("The posts in large part targeted fellow AHS students and school personnel with racist and derogatory comments."). In those cases, the speech "position[ed] the target as a[n] object rather than a person[.]"

The Fourth Circuit's decision in Kowalski v. Berkeley Cnty. Schs. (4th Cir. 2011) is similarly instructive in this regard. In that case, discipline imposed by the school on a student for online harassment and intimidation of a peer was allowed, with the Fourth Circuit holding that personally derogatory speech is "not the conduct and speech that our educational system is required to tolerate, as schools attempt to educate students about 'habits and manners of civility' or the 'fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.'" Similarly, as the district court in Shen observed:

Whatever the outer boundary might be of Tinker's interference inquiry, the[] cases establish that students have the right to be free of online posts that denigrate their race, ethnicity or physical appearance, or threaten violence. They have an equivalent right to enjoy an education in a civil, secure, and safe school environment.

Based on the evidence defendants have presented on summary judgment in this case, the court is compelled to conclude that defendants did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights by disciplining him for his online post. While on school grounds and during school hours, plaintiff posted a picture of an African American student under the caption "nigger." Not only does such a post denigrate the portrayed student's "race, ethnicity, or physical appearance" due to the nature of that racial slur, but this speech likewise affected and invaded the rights of other students on that campus, who complained directly to defendant Hanks regarding the impact upon them of plaintiff's conduct.

Specifically, the evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes that another African American student texted Principal Hanks and explained how the offensive tweets had directly impacted her. Additionally, that same student posted multiple times on Twitter on May 30, 2019, complaining about plaintiff's tweet and stating that she "[had] a problem with it; a huge one in fact." The evidence also shows that plaintiff retweeted the complaining student's tweets multiple times in an apparent effort to ridicule or shame her. This evidence supports defendants' contention that they were permitted to punish plaintiff due to his interference with the rights and emotional security of both the student depicted in the original tweet as well as the student who saw the tweet and complained about it.

Nonetheless, the undersigned finds this case to be a close one. If no students' rights had been interfered with under the evidence or if plaintiff's speech had occurred off-campus, defendants may well not be entitled to prevail on the pending motion. See Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. (finding that "the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished" in the context of off-campus speech); Tinker (finding that school officials must "be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint"); Cohen v. California (1971) ("We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated.").

Nevertheless, the undisputed evidence presented on summary judgment in this case establishes that plaintiff's speech occurred on campus and at least the right of one individual student to be secure and to be let alone was interfered with by plaintiff. "Speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior, serves to injure and intimate them, as well as to damage their sense of security and interfere with their opportunity to learn."

{Plaintiff's speech at issue here could also likely be categorized as "vulgar" or "plainly offensive" under Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), but because the court may resolve plaintiff's free speech claim by applying the rationale of Tinker, it need not consider whether plaintiff's speech was also "plainly offensive" under Fraser.}

California also has a state statute, Cal. Educ. Code 48950(a) (part of the so-called Leonaard Law), that provides extra protection for public high school students, but owing to what seem to be the plaintiff's lawyer's litigation decisions, the court didn't fully confront that argument:

Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is for the alleged violation of his right to be free from disciplinary sanctions under California Education Code 48950(a). Section 48950(a) provides that schools may not discipline pupils "solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside of the campus, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution." In his opposition, plaintiff concedes that if the court grants defendants' motion as to his other free speech claims, the court should also dismiss his claim brought pursuant to 48950(a).

That strikes me as an odd concession, given thatas the court pointed outsuch speech might well have been protected "when engaged in outside of the campus," especially since in context that statutory provision likely means protected against criminal punishment or civil liability, apart from whether it's protected against administrative discipline. And the court added:

In one case the California Court of Appeal has referenced in passing that 48950 "provides further protections for student free speech rights" beyond those present in the First Amendment or the California Constitution. Smith v. Novato Unified Sch. Dist. (2007). However, case law on the scope of those additional protections has been appropriately described as "quite sparse." Indeed, the parties submit no authoritynor is the court aware of anythat clarifies in what way 48950 does or could afford greater First Amendment protections than those recognized by the Supreme Court in Tinker.

Congratulations to Anthony DeMaria, who represented the defendants in the case.

Follow this link:
Slurs Posted from High School Campus Can Be Punished Even If They Aren't "Disruptive" or "Fighting Words" - Reason

The Satanic Temple is unable to raise its flag at Boston City Hall as the citys program remains suspended.

Earlier this month, the Satanic Temple applied to have one of its flags raised in Boston after the Supreme Court ruled Boston violated free speech rights when it refused to fly a Christians groups flag.

Religious Liberty is a bedrock principle in a democracy, and Religious Liberty is dependent upon government viewpoint neutrality, Lucien Greaves, cofounder of The Satanic Temple, previously said in a statement. When public officials are allowed to preference certain religious viewpoints over others, we do not have Religious Liberty, we have theocracy.

But the city said its not currently an option as the program was suspended on Oct. 19, 2021. It did not state if or when the program is returning. However, a city spokesperson said Boston is considering next steps.

We are carefully reviewing the Courts recent decision and its recognition of city governments authority to operate similar programs, a city spokesperson said. As we consider next steps, we will ensure that future City of Boston programs are aligned with this decision.

The Supreme Court ruling was from a 2017 incident. According to court documents, Boston refused to let Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based Christian organization, hoist its flag in front of the third flag pole at City Hall Plaza as part of a ceremony in 2017.

The commissioner of Bostons Property Management Department said that flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the citys Establishment Clause which prohibits a government from establishing an official religion.

But Boston has allowed different flags in the past.

Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved the raising of around 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies, court documents said. The majority of the flags were of other countries, however, some were associated with groups or causes, such as the Pride Flag.

Camp Constitution sued the city, claiming that Bostons refusal to let them raise their flag violated the First Amendments Free Speech Clause.

In the recent ruling, the supreme court said Boston could not discriminate on the basis of the religious groups viewpoint without violating the Constitution.

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups flags a form of government speech, the supreme court said. That means, in turn, that Bostons refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint abridg[ed] their freedom of speech.

Greaves said hes working on following up with the city, which had not responded to him.

But the current program being suspended is not likely to deter the group, which opened its first official headquarters in Salem in 2016.

They dont view Satan as an evil figure, but as one who dared question authority. The group mostly advocates for the separation of church and state and is known for attempting to get its one-ton goat-headed idol statue put next to the 10 Commandments monument on public grounds.

The group recently said in a letter to the Food and Drug Administration that abortion is part of a religious ritual, and preventing access to treatments that can terminate pregnancies violates religious freedom.

The announcement was in response to Texas abortion law, which went into effect Sept. 1, outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. And was furthered by a report from Politico that stated that the nations highest court voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide.

I hope that with the leaked draft of the Supreme Court majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, more people will wake up to the fact that these efforts by The Satanic Temple are actually high stakes frontline battles to preserve the basic rights of all, and not merely clever pranks to expose already well-known hypocrisies, Greaves said.

Related Content:

Visit link:
Satanic Temple cant raise flag at Boston City Hall as program is suspended following Supreme Court ruling th - MassLive.com

In December, federal district court Judge Robert Pitman ruled against HB 20, Texas' sweeping new social media law that bars social media firms from engaging in almost any moderation of the content that can appear on their sites. Not only are they forbidden to completely exclude content they disapprove of; they are also not allowed to treat it differently on the site (such as by flagging it as possibly unreliable "misinformation" or reducing its prominence relative to other speech on the same platform).

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling imposing a stay on the injunction against enforcement of the law issued by the trial court. The Fifth Circuit ruling is purely procedural, and is not accompanied by any opinion explaining the court's reasoning. So it's hard to say whether the stay is based on purely technical procedural considerations, or signals that the majority believes the law is actually constitutional.

On Friday, the tech firms challenging the law asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's stay, in a brief drafted by a virtual Who's Who of prominent conservative appellate lawyers, including "super-lawyer" Paul Clement (former Bush administration Solicitor General), and former Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.

I will not try to assess the purely procedural issues involved in the fight over the stay. But I completely agree with the brief's discussion of the substantive free speech question. HB 20 is blatantly unconstitutional because it compels speech, forbids the exercise of editorial discretion by social media firms, and is meant to target firms the Texas state government believes are hostile to "conservative" speech specifically.

HB 20 is an extreme version of proposals to treat social media firms as "common carriers" who have a legal duty to accept all or virtually all would-be customers. I criticized such proposals in detail here. Most of the points I make are relevant to the present case:

Let's start with first principles. Eugene Volokh asks "Whose rules should govern how Americans speak with other Americans?"..

Th[e] answer is that each American should be able to decide for himself, with extremely rare exceptions. But each person should also be able to decide what kinds of speech are permitted on their property. And that applies to media corporations no less than individuals. Thus, I should be able to advocate virtually any viewpoint I want. But Fox News and the New York Times should be equally free to refuse to broadcast or publish my views.

Both the right to free expression and the right to refuse a platform to speech you disapprove of are vital elements of freedom of speech. If Fox were forced to broadcast left-wing views they object to and the Times had to give space to right-wing ones its editors would prefer to avoid, it would be an obvious violation of their rights. Moreover, in the long run, such policies would actually reduce the quantity and quality of expression overall, as people would be less likely to establish TV stations and newspapers in the first place, if the cost of doing so was being forced to give a platform to your adversaries' views.

Thus, there should be a very strong presumption against forcing people to provide platforms for views they object to. Can proposals for common carrier regulation of social media overcome that objection? The answer should be a firm "no."

The standard rationale for common carrier regulation is that the the firms in question have some kind of monopoly power.

The reality is very much otherwise. Recent survey data compiled by the Pew Research Foundation finds that many more Americans get news by means other than social media than use the latter. For example, 68% of Americans indicated they regularly get news from media websites and apps, 68% from television, and only 53% from social media sites. Among the overwhelming majority (about 96% of the total sample) who use more than one type of media to get news, 35% preferred TV, 26% preferred news websites and apps, and only 11% said they preferred social media. The same study also found that, on average, Americans trust news from social media sources less than that from television and news websites.

What is true of news is also true of opinion and commentary about political and social issues in the news..

To the extent we are specifically concerned with access for conservative viewpoints, there are large right of center players in both TV media and online news and opinion. These include such major outlets as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and others.

In sum, social media sites have nothing approaching a monopoly over the market for political information generally, or even over its distribution online.

One measure of Big Tech social media's inability to control political discourse is their utter failure to prevent the rise of widespread attacks on Big Tech itself! Real monopolists worthy of the name should be able to at least suppress speech that directly threatens their own interests.

Moreover, as I explained in a January [2021] op ed in USA Today (itself one of the many alternatives to social media!), the big social media sites don't even command a true monopoly over social media, narrowly defined. Rival sites with different (and often much looser) moderation rules can and do compete with them.. If they aren't as popular as Facebook and Twitter, it's not because of lack of competition, but because fewer consumers like them. Facebook and Twitter themselves challenged previous, supposedly dominant incumbents. If they annoy enough consumers, or if someone develops a more appealing competing platform, today's supposedly unassailable "giants" will suffer the same fate..

Other rationales for imposing common carrier rules on social media firms are even weaker than the monopoly theory.. [this part of my piece critiques analogies between social media and phone lines and mail delivery services].

The potential imminent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk - who promises to greatly reduce content moderation - is a further sign that the market is fully capable of generating competition for platforms with restrictive moderation of policies.

I also explained why, if courts accept the HB 20 or "common carrier" approach to regulating social media, it would set a dangerous precedent for government control over other media:

In addition to banning content moderation rules that many consumers like, common carrier restrictions also create serious slippery slope risks. If the monopoly rationale for imposing common carrier rules on social media platforms is accepted, it could just as easily justify the imposition of similar requirements on many types of traditional media.

Even if Twitter and Facebook don't actually monopolize the market for political information, it's certainly true they reach various potential audiences that are difficult or impossible to reach in other ways. But, if that justifies forcing them to abjure restrictions on content, the same theory would rationalize imposing the same requirements on other types of media. Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other major broadcast and print media outlets also reach large audiences that can't always be easily reached in other ways. By that rationale, they too can be forced to be common carriers!

Perhaps the problem is not that social media giants monopolize any audience in some economic sense, but that they have too much influence over political discourse relative to some egalitarian baseline. Why should Mark Zuckerberg's views have any more clout than those of the average American? But we can make exactly the same argument for the owners and editors of Fox News, the New York Times, and any other outlet with a large audience. They too have vastly more influence over public discourse than the average American does. And it's not clear that they are any more worthy of their influence than Zuckerberg is.

Giving government a free hand to impose common carrier restrictions on any website or media outlet that "monopolizes" a particular audience or otherwise has "too much" influence is a power that can and will be abused. Call it "common carrier creep!"

The party in power will have obvious incentives to use it to neuter media that oppose them. Even if conservatives are comfortable with giving such discretion to GOP politicians, are they equally at ease with giving it to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren? How about the bureaucrats Democratic presidents are likely to appoint to federal regulatory agencies tasked with implementing such common carrier regulations (and deciding which firms should be subject to them)?

Liberal advocates of social media regulation (of whom Warren is a prominent example) should ask themselves whether they would be willing to entrust such regulatory authority to the likes of Donald Trump or Josh Hawley. Given the chance, those guys would be happy to make social media great again - under their definition of greatness, of course.

More:
Why the Texas Social Media Law is a Menace to Freedom of Speech - Reason

In May 2021, I published a list of Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments with our friends over at Areo. The great Nadine Strossen former president of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, and one of the foremost experts on freedom of speech alive today saw the series and offered to provide her own answers to some important misconceptions about freedom of speech. For this entry, I asked Jacob Mchangama, author of the excellent book, Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, to provide his answer.

Earlier in the series:

Assertion: Disinformation (and misinformation) about such vital topics as elections and COVID must be censored because it constitutes an existential threat to democracy and individual/public health.

Jacob Mchangama: What do the Catholic Church, England under Henry VIII, The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the European Union have in common?

Certainly not much in terms of ideology, ethics, or philosophy. However, for all their fundamental differences each of these states and institutions have prohibited various forms of false information.

For centuries, the Catholic Church was preoccupied with stamping out heresy, which has its roots in the Greek word, haresis, meaning choice. In the Middle Ages, heresy was defined as an opinion chosen by human perception contrary to holy Scripture, publicly avowed and obstinately defended, and could ultimately be punished by death. As late as 1832, Pope Gregory XVI warned that removing the restraints that keep men on the narrow path of truth was a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other and, therefore, the evil of immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty had to be countered at all costs.

Englands Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church, making him the supreme head of both state and the Church of England. To cement his power Henry prohibited publications containing open and manifest errors and slanders contravening the dignity and authority royal of the kings majesty and of his Imperial Crown. Henry built on older precedents, since a Scandalum Magnatum act punishing [F]alse News or Tales scandalizing the king or the Great Men of the Realm had been enacted under Edward I in 1275.

While disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely a cure worse than the disease.

On February 24, 1920, a leading member of the German Workers Party (DAP) read the partys manifesto out loud. His name was Adolf Hitler, and his demands included legal warfare against conscious political lying and its dissemination in the press. In Mein Kampf written while in prison Hitler again accused the liberal press of being concerned only with dig[ging] the grave for the German people and REICH whereas the lying Marxist Press was spreading falsehoods to enslave the nation for the benefit of international finance and its masters, the Jews.

According to Hitler, the state meekly allowed the media to hide behind the principle of freedom of the Press and liberty of public opinion, which permitted poison to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life with complete impunity. The solution was to bring the press under state control and free it from the enemies of the people. Shortly after Hitler assumed power through democratic means, the Nazis used constitutional means to expand existing emergency laws permitting the (Nazi) minister of the interior to ban publications that contain obviously inaccurate news, the dissemination of which is likely to endanger vital interests of the state.

And once the Nazis had pushed President Hindenburg to use the emergency provision of the Weimar Constitution to pass the so-called Reichstag Fire Decree to suspend civil liberties including free speech paving the way for a dictatorship, laws against malicious gossip were enacted, which made it a crime to spread rumors about or gossip against the government and its officials.

The European Union can trace its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community aimed at strengthening European integration and avoiding new and devastating wars and persecution like those unleashed by the Nazis. The European Union is committed to democracy and human rights and has a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects freedom of expression. However, in early March the EU banned Russian state-sponsored media outlets RT and Sputnik from broadcasting, as a response to these outlets nefarious pro-Kremlin disinformation and propagandistic coverage of the conflict in Ukraine. The ban also requires search engines like Google to delist all search results from Sputnik and RT, and an obligation for social media companies to block their accounts as well as deleting the sharing and reproduction of RT and Sputnik content by other users.

While the scope, severity and consequences of all these laws against false information differ significantly, they are all aimed at protecting against certain forms of false information thought to be particularly dangerous to the fundamental values and institutions of the relevant polity, as defined by the very rulers or political leaders whom laws against false news will be protecting.

This is a lesson of which contemporary authoritarians are keenly aware. In 2021, 47 journalists were imprisoned on charges of spreading false news in countries like Myanmar, Egypt, Rwanda, and Ethiopia, according to data from the Committee to Protect Journalists. Moreover, since the onset of COVID, a censorship pandemic of laws has infected authoritarian states, which prohibits various forms of allegedly false information under the guise of protecting public health, while actually aimed at repressing dissent.

There is little reason to believe that things would be different in America should the Supreme Court decide to roll back landmark First Amendment cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, which now limits the governments power to punish false statements about public issues, in order not to chill vigorous debate and criticism of public officials. The Sedition Act of 1798 showed that even luminaries of the Founding Generation, including Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, were willing to punish false, scandalous, or malicious writings against the government and Congress they dominated, and to use this law in a deeply partisan manner to target their Democratic-Republican opponents.

Those intolerant and tribalist impulses are still alive today. Donald Trump frequently demanded tougher laws against the fake news media. A 2017 poll showed that a plurality (45%) of Republicans agreed that courts should be able to shut down media outlets for publishing or broadcasting stories that are biased or inaccurate, with fewer than 20% of Democrats supporting this idea.

In 2021 when Biden had become president 65% of Democrats agreed that the government should do more to restrict false online information even if it limits freedom of information, whereas only 28% of Republicans were on board. We can be sure that Trump and Biden as well as Democrats and Republicans have conflicting ideas about what types of speech should be deemed inaccurate or false and who should be punished for peddling it.

So, while disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely to be a cure worse than the disease.

Nadine Strossen: First Amendment principles permit the government to punish false speech when it directly, immediately causes specific serious harm. Important examples of punishable false speech include defamation, fraud, and perjury. The term disinformation (or misinformation) has no specific legal meaning, but is widely used to designate false or misleading speech that cannot constitutionally be punished precisely because its potential harms are indirect and speculative.

As current debates illustrate, one persons cherished truth is someone elses despised or feared fake news. Speech that critics seek to suppress as disinformation almost never consists of objectively verifiable facts alone, but rather, also involves subjective matters of interpretation and analysis. After all, speakers who intentionally or recklessly utter false factual statements may constitutionally be punished under existing laws such as those against fraud. In contrast, though, the Supreme Court has ruled that [u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction . . . on the competition of other ideas.

Most vulnerable would be ideas that challenge government policy.

To this day, expression by racial justice advocates continues to be assailed as disinformation. For example, a May 2021 NPR story quoted Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, as stating: I feel that Black Lives Matter is one of the greatest sources of disinformation. . . They have manipulated the good nature of many people.

The inherent problems with censoring disinformation specifically plague recent laws that are touted as restricting pandemic-related disinformation. The Economist reported in February 2021 that [c]ensorious governments are abusing fake news laws, invoking the pandemic as an excuse to gag reporters and to silence critics of their anti-pandemic policies. Given the inescapable elasticity of the concept of disinformation, restrictions on it can easily be wielded against important information, even in democratic countries. Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed constantly evolving and shifting views among expert individuals and agencies, as they steadily gather and analyze additional data. Yesterdays life-endangering disinformation can and has become todays life-protecting gospel. As one example, recall the CDCs changing edicts about mask-wearing.

Because of these unavoidable problems, in 2020, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against Puerto Ricos laws targeting pandemic-related disinformation. The complainants are two prominent investigative journalists, who explained that developing stories on matters of immense public concern are often complex, contentious, and murky, so that inadvertent inaccuracies are inevitable even in the most thoroughly vetted reporting.

Multiple studies have concluded that the most fruitful anti-disinformation tool is accurate information that can check its spread and influence: targeted responses to specific disinformation, as well as preemptive general educational approaches, and enhancing critical media skills. Psychological research shows that even more effective than debunking disinformation after its dissemination is prebunking: inoculating people against disinformation before they are exposed to it.

In contrast with censorship, these counterspeech/more speech strategies not only are more compatible with free speech and democracy; they are also more effective in promoting truth.

Originally posted here:
Censorship won't cure disinformation (featuring Jacob Mchangama and Nadine Strossen): Part 17 of answers to arguments against free speech - FIRE -...

MORE than three-fifths of UK women dont say what they are thinking on sensitive issues because they are scared they might get into trouble.

The figure for men is only slightly lower, at 52 per cent.

7

The majority of the population, then, holding its tongue. Watching its Ps and Qs.

The things they think they cant express without censure concern stuff like immigration.

But also suggesting that ethnic minority people have life just the same as the rest of us.

And that someone born with a whopping great todger is a man, end of story.

This poll, conducted by YouGov, came out towards the end of last year.

We pride ourselves in this country of having freedom of speech.

But that hasnt been true for at least two decades. Its a thing of the past, like Toast Toppers and the hula hoop.

When a bloke can receive a visit from the coppers and be told to watch his thinking for having retweeted a joke about transgendering, you know were in BIG trouble.

Likewise when the radical Left tries to silence brilliant speakers, such as the feminist Germaine Greer or the veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Meanwhile, the students are busy cancelling our entire history on account of slavery.

Suggest that Islam has been implicated in one or two terrorist attacks and youll be accused of Islamophobia and may get a visit from Plod. Even though its demonstrably true.

Freedom of speech has been under sustained attack for a long while now. And the Government has done nothing about it.

I would like to think that is about to change, as a consequence of the Queens Speech this week.

A new Bill of Rights is due to be introduced in the next month or so to replace the Human Rights Act.

And the Government has promised that the right to voice your opinions, regardless of if they offend some melting snowflake, will supposedly be the crucial part of this bill.

The Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said: I feel very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether by the privacy issue or whether its wokery and political correctness.

I worry about those parameters of free speech being narrowed.Well, sure, Dom and about time too.

The Left argues that silencing people is simply a means of preventing minorities from feeling a bit upset.

But I think they are a little more resilient than the social justice warriors like to make out.

In fact, that is not the reason for our politically correct cancel culture.

The real reason is that the Left wants to close down debate on subjects where its policies simply dont add up.

They are terrified rightly that the vast majority of people in the country simply dont agree with them. Just as that YouGov opinion poll proved.

Punishing people who state uncomfortable truths means far fewer people actually say them. They keep schtum.

But the silencing of debate also breeds resentment and rancour: You cant say THAT any more!

And it attacks the entire basis of our democracy: The right to freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I just hope this bill goes far enough. I hope it abolishes the concept of non-criminal hate crime, for a start.

I hope it forces universities to realise that a minority of the perpetually offended cannot stop outside speakers from addressing those who want to hear them.

Its been a long time coming, this bill.

But at least the Government recognises there is a real problem a very big problem.

And is committed to doing something about it.

YAY! The Social Democratic Partys Wayne Dixon swept into office on a landslide in Leeds last week.

Evicting Labour for the first time in history.

7

The dim-witted Labour candidate wouldnt even shake his hand.

Ha, who cares? It just goes to show that if people think the two main parties can be beaten, voters will turn out.

Were the party that knows what a woman is, and doesnt want all our statues thrown in the river.

Well done Wayne and if you get a chance, look at the YouTube video of his wife jumping for joy at the election result.

Its a hoot.

DO you remember the days when flying was...well, if not great fun, at least easy to do and efficient?

What the hell has happened?

7

We have queues a mile long at our airports.

Some of this is the consequence of Covid, of course.

Too many people are still taking weeks off work with this ineffectual illness.

But the threat of terrorism has also made taking a flight a real pain in the neck.

And then theres the exorbitant cost, occasioned by huge fuel prices.

And always the chance that some unwashed XR hippy div will try to shame you for going on an aeroplane at all.

Think Ill be spending the summer here in Blighty.

These days, foreign travel is just not worth the effort.

King Charles

WELL, he managed to open Parliament without cocking it up.

He walked in a kingly manner through the lobby without stopping to talk to any plants on the way.

He managed to read the Queens Speech.

Without inserting any mental bits about how we should all try homeopathy.

He didnt pass wind or do that annoying wringing of his hands thing he sometimes does.

Maybe Charlie will make a decent King, then.

The last King Charles we had was one of our better monarchs.

I KNOW hes a surfer dude vegan who likes sickly soft rock.

But theres something likeable about our Eurovision contestant Sam Ryder.

7

And hes got a decent voice and a decent tune.

I daresay well come last again, because everybody (except for Ukraine) hates us.

In fact, if Ukraine doesnt win by a mile Ill eat my own fingers.

But at least this time I wont have to hide behind the sofa in shame as usual when the UKs entrant is on.

AND so...Sir Keir Starmer is revealed as being even more weaselly and deceitful than the Prime Minister.

Which takes some doing, frankly.

7

This is the man who demanded more and more Covid restrictions.

Nothing was enough for him. Hed have had us all chained up in the garden shed if hed had his way.

And he demanded the Prime Minister MUST resign when it was revealed Boris Johnson was being investigated by the Old Bill.

But he will not resign himself when being investigated by the Old Bill.

Hell only resign if he gets a fixed penalty notice.

Which the Durham coppers have said they will not do retrospectively.

The nerve of the bloke is gobsmacking.

And never has a petard been hoisted higher.

WHATS wrong with a chipolata? You can get quite big chipolatas.

Id be delighted if some babe said my old fella resembled a tasty and satisfying sausage.

7

All I get instead is references to button mushrooms and, on one occasion, a Midget Gem.

You can hold your head up, Peter Andre.

At least it wasnt a Peperami.

Teacher assessment

THIS is a time of great and frantic worry in the Liddle household.

My daughter is doing her GCSEs. So shes a bit... yknow...STRESSY.

And she asked at one stage: What exactly is the point of these exams?

And do you know, I wonder the same myself.

Tony Blairs son, Euan, has just called for GCSEs to be scrapped. I think hes right.

At 16, the kids should be assessed by their teachers.

Leave the serious exams until A-levels come along.

It would certainly make for a happier house up here.

ISNT it kind of French president Emmanuel Macron to suggest we can join a European alliance?

This would be a politically integrated (his words) trading alliance of European countries.

7

Does the description remind you of anything? The man is deluded.

Whyja think we got out in the first place?

Try to govern your own basket-case country and mind your own business.

Oh, and leave our fish alone.

Read the original here:
Weve not had free speech in 20 years. But thats changing... - The US Sun