Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

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.

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

Free speech legislation that aims to eradicate cancel cultureat English universities could be used to protect those with extreme views, according to a former universities minister.

Lord Willetts predicted that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill which is expected to receive Royal Assent imminently will result in quite a lot of legal cases from across the political spectrum.

Asked at a Westminster Higher Education Forum event on free speech whether the bill was just about protecting Conservative views, Lord Willetts who has been involved in scrutinising the legislation in the House of Lords said he did not think this would be the approach taken by the Office for Students (OfS) or the courts.

He added that he could foresee a situation whereby, for example, the bills protections could be claimed by people with quite extreme Islamic views.

Referencing a controversy surrounding the then universities minister Michelle Donelan in May 2021, who said the bill would allow someone who denies the Holocaust the legal right to speak at a university, Lord Willetts said she had been correct as Holocaust denial is not of itself a criminal offence in the UK.

Ms Donelan was eventually overruled by No10, which said Holocaust denial would not be tolerated, but Lord Willetts said if this is to be the case then theOfS will have to outlinehowit intends to regulate universities using the new legislation in its long-awaited guidelines.

These guidelines have not yet been shared with anybody in Parliament, Lord Willetts said, a situation he described as frustrating.

He added that the document will also have to engage with other challenges such as what might happen if the rights granted by the bill appear to come into conflict with different pieces of legislation that universities are subject to, such as the Equality Act which protects individuals against harassment or the Prevent Duty,which aims to minimise the spread of extremist ideologies.

Appearing at the same event, Bryn Harris, the chief legal counsel for the Free Speech Union, said another potential issue when the bill is implemented will be universities arguing that freedom of speech within the law allows them to impose employment policies that can then restrict what academics say.

He agreed the new legislation may see institutions performing a tightrope walk between compliance with this bill or, if they get it slightly wrong, potentially falling foul of the Equality Act. But this could be dealt with by the OfS guidance, he said.

There needs to be interplay between free speech and HR committees to ensure overall compliance with all legislation, he said, adding that universities are going to have a lot of work to do.

Harry Anderson, policy manager for Universities UK, said the different duties being placed on universities was creating a bit of confusion and uncertainty when universities are having to make these very sensitive, very difficult balancing acts.

Lord Willetts said he remained concerned that the much more intrusive regulatory regime could have a chilling effect and result in a safety-first environment whereby no speakers at all are invited for fear of falling foul of the legislation.

The peers efforts to remove a statutory tort from the bill which hands individuals the right to sue if they feel their free speech has been violated by institutions were overturned when the legislation returned to the House of Commons.

He said there was potential for a nightmare scenario whereby a students union caught up in controversy could receive both a letter from the OfS saying they are being investigated and a lawyers letter saying they are being sued, adding that this felt like overkill.

The fact that changes to the bill agreed by the government now mean the tort can only be used after all other means of addressing the grievance have been exhausted felt like a reasonable compromise, Lord Willetts said.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

See the rest here:
Free speech bill 'could protect extreme views' - Times Higher Education

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!

View original post here:
Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record

On Tuesday night, a large and extremely diverse crowd featuring not only people of different ethnic and social backgrounds but of contrasting political persuasions conservative Republicans, libertarians, liberal Democrats, leftists came together in a banquet hall in midtown Manhattan united by single conviction: dedication to freedom of speech.The occasion was a gala celebrating the recent relaunch of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the group championing freedom of speech in educational settings since 1999, as the Foundationfor Individual Rights and Expression now championing free speech in all walks of life and still going by the catchy acronym FIRE.

The large banners on display in the hall underscored the message. My favorite: Canceling free speech doesnt make us China, but its a red flag.The lineup of speakersincluded Ilya Shapiro, the conservative legal scholar forced out of Georgetown University Law Centerover a tweet arguing that then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was a lesser candidate picked because of her race and sex, and Michael Render, aka Killer Mike,the Black rap artist and activist who has been an outspoken critic of government attempts to use rap and hip-hop lyrics as evidence of criminality. Killer Mikeselectrifying keynote address brought down the house.

Only $1 for 5 months of unlimited access to Newsday.com

On Tuesday night, a large and extremely diverse crowd featuring not only people of different ethnic and social backgrounds but of contrasting political persuasions conservative Republicans, libertarians, liberal Democrats, leftists came together in a banquet hall in midtown Manhattan united by single conviction: dedication to freedom of speech.The occasion was a gala celebrating the recent relaunch of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the group championing freedom of speech in educational settings since 1999, as the Foundationfor Individual Rights and Expression now championing free speech in all walks of life and still going by the catchy acronym FIRE.

The large banners on display in the hall underscored the message. My favorite: Canceling free speech doesnt make us China, but its a red flag.The lineup of speakersincluded Ilya Shapiro, the conservative legal scholar forced out of Georgetown University Law Centerover a tweet arguing that then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was a lesser candidate picked because of her race and sex, and Michael Render, aka Killer Mike,the Black rap artist and activist who has been an outspoken critic of government attempts to use rap and hip-hop lyrics as evidence of criminality. Killer Mikeselectrifying keynote address brought down the house.

Over the 20-plus years of its existence, the Foundation has been most often associated with campus wars over politically correct speech restrictions based on sensitivities about race, gender and sexuality; because of this, its critics have often portrayed it as a stealth right-wing group peddling the myth that overzealous college activists are the biggest free-speech threat in America. But in fact, it is an increasingly rare entity in our polarized world: a genuinely nonpartisan group.

It has defended college students and professors accused of racism for criticizing affirmative action or of sexism for defending the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases. But it has also intervened on behalf of untenured faculty members fired after being targeted by right-wing media for statements about racism interpreted as anti-white and on behalf of students disciplined not over political speech but over criticism of the college administration. It stands up for speakers sponsored by the right-wing organization Turning Point USA who get shouted down by student protesters, but its just-released campus speech report criticizes Turning Point for targeting left-wing professors for harassment. It has criticized mandatory statements in support of diversity, equity and inclusion, but challenged moves by red-state politiciansto ban or restrict diversity and equity programs in schools and corporations.

One thing we all have in common is that we hate bullies, the Foundations president Greg Lukianoff told the audience in his closing remarks.

Some might ask why a pro-free expression organization is needed when the American Civil Liberties Union already champions First Amendment rights. In recent years, however, the ACLU has been a rather tepid defender of free speech in cases where speech clashes with perceived social justice goals such as anti-racism or transgender rights. The presence of former ACLU president Nadine Strossen as a speaker at the Foundations gala underscored the fact that it carries on the ACLUs older tradition of nonpartisan civil liberties advocacy. That doesnt mean the two organizations are rivals; in some cases, they are and will be allies. But in many ways, the Foundation is better suited to this political moment when illiberalism is escalating on both the left and the right. In a polarized world, support for free expression and opposition to bullies can be a depolarizing force.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young,a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute, are her own.

Cathy Young is a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute.

Original post:
A notable foundation for freedom of speech - Newsday

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.

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

Freedom of speech pros and cons are ripe for debate, despite this democratic principles cherished role in American politics. Heres what both sides think. To have stories like this and more delivered directly to your inbox, be sure to sign up for our newsletter.

Freedom of speech pros and cons evoke heated debate, despite its status as a cherished American value. Before analyzing contentious opinions, lets review the history of this fundamental ideal.

According to History.com, the ancient Greeks established freedom of speech as a democratic principle during the late 5th century. The ancient Greek word parrhesia means free speech, or to speak candidly. Athenians freely discussed politics, religion, and government criticism in some settings.

In the US, the First Amendment to the constitution ratified within the Bill of Rights in 1791 protects freedom of speech. The amendment simply states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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 Supreme Court determines which types of speech are constitutionally protected in varied settings.

The United Nations also protects freedom of speech through its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. Still, sociopolitical conflict and social and digital technology advancements fuel clashes over parameters and benefits of free speech worldwide.

Now, lets dissect freedom of speech pros and cons, beginning with pros.

First, freedom of speech allows citizens to openly dissent against the government without fear of persecution. The First Amendment prohibits the US government from censoring opposition. Citizens are free to publicly share dissenting viewpoints and peaceably gather in protest. In contrast, authoritarian governments including absolute monarchies and communist states can limit, ban, and punish dissent.

Additionally, freedom of speech helps elicit social change. Abolitionism, womens suffrage, civil and LGBTQ rights, and other historical US social movements benefit from the ability to spread new ideas and gather in mass to demand change.

Freedom of speech and the press also help protect everyday citizens from the countrys elite. Private citizens, activists, and journalists use their voice to expose harmful activity by government officials, religious leaders, and corporate executives.

Another defined freedom of speech benefit is that not all speech is protected speech. In the US, speech that incites imminent and likely law violations presents a clear and present danger, and distributing obscene materials is prohibited.

Freedom of speech presents societal disadvantages as well.

First, freedom of speech can protect speech that others, including the majority, find offensive. For example, in 2017, the US Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that the US government may not restrict hate speech. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion.

Opponents also argue that free speech protections can stifle unity among the people. Chinas central government, for example, wields strong control over information shared through traditional and online news media and social media forums. This type of control makes it difficult for dissenting viewpoints to spread, fragment society, and spur organized social movements.

Lastly, freedom of speech makes it easier for false information to spread. In the US, slander, libel, and defamation are unlawful, but the First Amendment does not always account for false statements. Free speech protections can more widely disseminate false information, causing confusion and conflict especially during a crisis.

Free speech debates continue to flare locally and nationally.

One setting ripe for conflict: US college campuses. Summing up the situation, The Atlantic reports: While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others.

Similarly, pundits on the left and right continue to debate the health of American free speech through combative cancel culture rhetoric. In recent years, numerous public figures face backlash for past and present comments and actions many deem offensive on social media. Conservatives warn that biased mass hysteria is sweeping the country, while liberals champion holding powerful individuals more accountable.

Additionally, at the highest level of politics, former Republican President Donald Trump waged battles on both sides of the freedom of speech debate. In 2019, the White House sought to investigate alleged anti-conservative bias among top social media companies. By the end of his presidency, however, multiple social media platforms permanently banned Trump due to violence incited during the January 6th Capitol insurrection.

The rest is here:
Freedom of Speech Pros and Cons: What Both Sides Think

Free speech is a term that gets thrown around quite often these days. But what is it? And why is it important?

The freedom of speech is simply the ability to say, write, or otherwise express what you truly believe without fear of punishment or retaliation from the government.

This freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech. The authors of our Constitution believed it was very important to protect this freedom.

And for good reason.

Speaking is how you express your thoughts. So if government officials can force you to say things you dont believe, you no longer control the content of your speech and thus lose the freedom to live consistently with the principles you treasure most.

Government officials who seek to control your speech are trying to control what you think and what you do. And thats contrary to the very idea of freedom. Not only that, but its contrary to the dignity of the human person. Our thoughts not only cause our actions, they are the most personal possession we have.

While upholding human dignity is the most important reason to protect this freedom, it certainly isnt the only reason.

If you want good ideas to have influence, youll support protections for the freedom of speech. The best ideas often come from the robust discussion and debate of many different ideas.

And this cannot exist without free speech.

Some might argue that the freedom of speech is just a piece of rhetoric used by those who want to say hateful things. But this is false.

Free speech is a right that every individual possesses as a human being created by God.

And this right isnt just for those with certain beliefs. In fact, thats the whole point. There are as many unique perspectives as there are people. Our ability to share our perspective with others is what free speech is all about.

As the Declaration of Independence says, all men are created equal. But this doesnt mean that all ideas are equal. There will always be bad or even false ideas that we must address.

But the answer isnt to shut down debate or silence the people sharing those ideas. The answer is more speech.

We can use our own speech to answer hateful statements with good and truthful ones. We can debate ideas we consider bad with those we believe are good.

No matter what, we need those with whom we disagree to be involved in the conversation.

Debate with our ideological opponents sharpens our ideas and may even allow us to see the truth in a new and unexpected way. Not only that, but our opponents right to free speech should be protected because they are human beings with dignity just like us. And if their right is taken away, then ours can easily be taken away too.

It has been said that I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

When we think of the First Amendment right to free speech, we often think of how it protects us from being censored by the government because of what we say.

But what about what we do not say?

The Constitution also protects us from being forced to say or express messages with which we disagree. While this may seem like a far-fetched scenario, it is becoming increasingly common. Take for example artists and other creative professionals.

Artists express their thoughts and beliefs through custom creations. Painters, calligraphers, graphic designers, photographers , and, yes, cake artists, all express their beliefs through their various mediums. But what happens when the government tries to dictate what these artists can and cannot express with their work?

Well, a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, this has been happening more and more with the spread of so-called Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity laws. These laws often seek to force creative professionals to create messages through their art with which they disagree.

Abolishing the freedom of speech and trying to control what people say are the tools of tyrants.

Our Founders valued free speech because they knew the consequences when it was taken away. Many of the first settlers who came to America in the 17th century were escaping England, where the King tried to force them to profess religious beliefs with which they disagreed.

This isnt just something that happened in the past. Today, in many countries around the world, people are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to death for expressing views with which the government disagrees.

We are truly blessed to live in the United States where we can share our views, regardless of what those views are. We must keep it this way.

Right now, the First Amendment is under threat.

Free speech is being attacked on college campuses

Universities are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas where students can learn from many different perspectives. Unfortunately, today, there is a culture of silencing certain viewpoints on many college campuses.

Students who want to say anything contrary to a far-left worldview are often shut down or told they can only speak in so-called speech zones on campus.

And its not just students. Professors have been denied promotions and even fired for expressing their views. Speakers invited to college campuses by right-leaning student groups have been protested and even canceled by college administrators.

Free speech is under threat in corporate board rooms

Anti-free speech culture is spreading from university campuses into corporate board rooms. Employees and shareholders at many large corporations fear sharing their true opinions. They face backlash from left-leaning leadership and co-workers that could lead to being reprimanded or even fired.

Corporations even rely on discredited sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to prevent right-leaning organizations from using their products or resources. This happened to Alliance Defending Freedom. Amazon continues to rely on the SPLCs false label to prevent ADF from using their charity program, AmazonSmile.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, this affects thousands of Americans who use the products and services of huge corporations like Amazon.

Free speech is under attack on social media platforms

You may have heard of cancel culture. It often references scenarios like this: a person posts something on social media that expresses a certain viewpoint. Those against that viewpoint mob the post, calling for the poster to be humiliated, silenced, and in some cases, even fired from their job. Every once in a while, the posters personal informationsuch as their personal addresswill be shared online in an attempt to intimidate that person.

Whats worse is that these mobs frequently get their wish. And in many instances, tech companies that run social media platforms censor posts or even suspend users for expressing certain views.

People should not have to fear for their job or personal safety simply because they shared their opinions online. Cancel culture is antithetical to a culture of free speech and debate.

Do you have an opinion on an important cultural or political topic that you want to share? Our Constitution protects your right to do so. But we need to be vigilant to make sure this protection is not taken away. That is why ADF is committed to protecting the freedom of speechnot just for somebut for every American.

To stay up to date on cases and issues affecting your freedom of speech, sign up for our emails below.

Continue reading here:
What is the freedom of speech? - Alliance Defending Freedom

Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.

Even though freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, the government is still free to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances include:

While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers are able to regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace since the First Amendment only applies to the government. This right allowed Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from their sites in 2021 without legal repercussion. Companies like Facebook and YouTube were also able to ban misleading information on Covid-19 during the 2020 pandemic.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment in the case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck. Manhattan Neighborhood Network is a nonprofit that was given the authority by New York City to operate public access channels in Manhattan. The organization decided to suspend two of their employees after they received complaints about a film the employees produced. The employees argued that this was a violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because they were being punished due to the content of their film. The Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network was not a government entity or a state actor, so the nonprofit couldnt be subjected to the First Amendment.

In another case, Nyabwa v. Facebook, the Southern District of Texas also affirmed that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. There, the plaintiff had a Facebook account, which spoke on President Donald Trumps business conflicts of interest. Facebook decided to lock the account, so the plaintiff was no longer able to access it. The plaintiff decided to sue Facebook because he believed the company was violating his First Amendment rights. The court dismissed the lawsuit stating that the First Amendment prevents Congress and other government entities from restricting freedom of speech, not private entities.

[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team]

See original here:
freedom of speech | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The First Amendments Free Speech Clause affords special protection to certain places traditionally open for speech activities, such as sidewalks and public ways, placing a heavy burden on any government attempt to restrict speech in what the Court has identified as traditional public fora. But even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speechso-called time-place-manner restrictionsprovided those restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

This term, the Court struck down a particular, highly controversial time-place-manner restriction in Massachusetts, ruling 90 in McCullen v. Coakley that a state abortion-clinic buffer-zone law was not narrowly tailored. That buffer-zone law, codified as part of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, made it a crime to knowingly stand on a public way or sidewalk within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any reproductive health care facility, which the Act defined as a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed. Petitioners, individuals who attempt to engage women approaching Massachusetts abortion clinics in sidewalk counseling (which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help pursuing those options), claimed that the 35-foot buffer zones displaced them from their previous positions outside the clinics, considerably hampering their counseling efforts. The district court and the First Circuit both ruled the Act to be a reasonable time-place-manner restriction.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that although the act is not content based and is viewpoint neutral, it is not narrowly tailored because it burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the governments legitimate interests, which he identified as maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks and . . . preserving access to adjacent reproductive healthcare facilities. The majority identified several other less restrictive means of achieving those goals, such as prohibiting deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances or enforcing existing traffic regulations. Justice Roberts concluded that because of the importance of the First Amendment issues at stake, Massachusetts must show that such alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the governments interests, not simply that the chosen route is easier.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, and Justice Alito concurred only in the judgment. Those Justices disputed the majoritys claim that the act is viewpoint neutral and would have instead subjected it to strict scrutiny, which it would fail. Justice Scalia noted that just this term in McCutcheon v. FEC the Court found it unnecessary to parse the differences between two available standards where a statute challenged on First Amendment grounds fails even under the less demanding test. Thus, he claims that the Courts digression about viewpoint neutrality is pure dicta that subjects anti-abortion speech to a less rigorous constitutional standard, allowing the Court to strike down the law while maintaining a double standard on anti-abortion speech.

But because Justice Roberts found the restriction to be content and viewpoint neutral (and thus not subject to strict scrutiny), Massachusetts and other states will be able to experiment with more narrowly tailored statutes in order to maintain patients access to abortion providers.

Follow this link:
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech | LII / Legal Information Institute

Freedom of speech online: What are the Florida and Texas laws the US top court could hear a challenge to  The Indian Express

See the article here:
Freedom of speech online: What are the Florida and Texas laws the US top court could hear a challenge to - The Indian Express