Cherokee One Feather Editorial Board

Tribal Council heard the Cherokee One Feather Editorial Board on an ordinance change on Thursday, July 9 that will further protect the rights of free speech and free press.

The Board proposed that the One Feather Editor position answer directly to the Executive Committee administratively. Regarding termination or transfer of an Editor, the Principal Chief, Vice Chief, and two-thirds of the Editorial Board would have to concur before any action could be taken against the Editor.

At first glance, this does not seem like very much of a change, but it will further protect the Cherokee One Feather and staff from any potential future political pressure. This change will give the staff the confidence necessary to continue to report truthfully and fully to the community regardless of the intentions of future politicians.

One of the issues hindering the Cherokee Code is the lack of substantive protections or repercussions for violating the Code. In earlier legislation, the One Feather asked and received amendments to eliminate vagueness and codify a course of action to address political violations of the Free Press Act.

The legislation passed by Council on Thursday will permit the Editor of the newspaper, who is charged with approving story assignments and final copy, to use the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics, the mandate of Chapter 75 of the Cherokee Code, and the policies set forth by the Editorial Board, to follow his best judgement in his or her duties without fear of termination or transfer.

The One Feather has enjoyed an unprecedented period of support by both the legislative and executive branch for free speech and press. This legislation provides guidance for the future, for such a time when government has conflict with the ideas of free speech.

The legislation simply codifies what is already happening between the government and the One Feather.

We, at the One Feather, appreciate the support of the Executive Office and the Tribal Council, and the incredible readers and tribal community who find value in the paper that we produce. We were amazed as we reduced our print presence over the course of the ongoing pandemic, how the community, locally and nationally, shifted to the electronic edition and readership continued to grow exponentially. We feel that it is your confidence in us that has brought us to this very important milestone in the newspapers history.

This change will not affect the way we do business. In fact, it provides guarantees that we may continue to provide honest, unbiased, true reporting to our community and to the thousands of readers that we serve. When tribal members are doing historical research a century into the future, we want them to come to the One Feather archives and see them as the most factual documentation of Cherokee history available. Those are our vision and mission statements. It is our commitment to you.

See the original post:

EDITORIAL: Protecting your freedom of speech - The Cherokee One Feather - Cherokee One Feather

Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue said on Friday that a growing boycott of his company in response to his recent praise of President Donald Trump amounts to a suppression of speech, tapping into the presidents ongoing narrative that liberals are proponents of an oppressive cancel culture that punishes those who exercise their right to free speech.

Calls for a boycott emerged after Unanue said that Trump was an incredible builder and that the US was blessed to have him as president at a White House event on Thursday meant to highlight a new advisory commission on creating economic opportunities for Latinx Americans. The praise elicited criticism from progressives, and a boycott campaign of Goya Foods backed by prominent political and cultural leaders like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda rapidly spread across social media.

In an interview on Fox & Friends, Unanue argued that the online campaign revealed a double standard, pointing to the fact that he attended a healthy eating initiative at the invitation of former president Barack Obama and and first lady Michelle Obama in 2012.

So youre allowed to talk good or to praise one president, but youre not allowed, when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and educational prosperity and you make a positive comment, all of a sudden thats not acceptable, Unanue said.

So, you know, Im not apologizing for saying and especially if youre called by the president of the United States, youre going to say, No, Im sorry, Im busy. No thank you. I didnt say that to the Obamas, and I didnt say that to President Trump, he added.

Conservative politicians and pundits have leaped on the boycott, popularized online as the #Goyaway campaign, as another sign of the existence of an extremist left seeking to obliterate discourse and to enact punitive measures against those they disagree with.

The Left is trying to cancel Hispanic culture and silence free speech. #BuyGoya, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted on Friday. Fox News contributor and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee tweeted: Cancel-culture leftists dont need beans. Their speeches & whining already produce all the gas the planet can take.

But while Unanue and his supporters on the right are decrying the boycott as an attack on his right to speech, in reality, its simply criticism of his political gestures.

Buycotting is not suppressing speech. In fact, it is the opposite, Jaime Settle, a scholar of American political behavior at the College of William and Mary, told me. Corporate leaders have a choice: If they choose to publicly disclose their political views, they should expect people to respond by expressing their own, even if the public channels that speech through consumer habit.

Unanues right and capacity to express his ideas about the president or any other matter remain intact even if profit margins at Goya, a multibillion-dollar company, take a hit due to pushback from boycott campaigns. Instead of free speech, the core issue is the social consequences that accompany taking a political position in a highly polarized political climate.

Unanue, the head of the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the US, appeared at the White House on Thursday to announce that Goya Foods would be donating 1 million cans of chickpeas as well as 1 million pounds of food to food banks as part of the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative, a new advisory commission created by Trump tasked with increasing Hispanic access to economic and educational opportunities.

When Unanue spoke at the Rose Garden event at a podium just feet away from Trump, he did not just announce his donation but also offered praise of the president, likening him to his own grandfather, a Spanish immigrant who founded Goya in 1936.

Were all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder, he said. And so we have an incredible builder. And we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president, and we pray for our country, that we will continue to prosper and to grow.

Unanues decision to laud the president resulted in sharp blowback among Latinx progressives, who argued that Unanues celebration of the Trump presidency marked a betrayal of the Latinx community that buys his companys products.

@GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations. Now their CEO, Bob Unanue, is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain, tweeted former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julin Castro. Americans should think twice before buying their products.

Miranda, the creator of Hamilton, tweeted, We learned to bake bread in this pandemic, we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta. Bye.

United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led organization, created a petition slamming Unanue for aligning with Trump and calling for a boycott of the company; #Goyaway and #BoycottGoya trended on Twitter after the remarks.

Commentators on the right responded to the boycott campaign with their own hashtag: #BuyGoya. Conservative pundits and politicians described the boycott as an attack on Unanues freedom of speech, and advocated for pushing back by stocking up on Goya products.

Amid the blowback, Unanue decided to appear on Fox News and Fox Business on Friday.

On Fox & Friends one of Trumps favorite television shows and a bastion of far-right thinking Unanue began the interview by saying, Its good to be with some friends. During the interview, he said the boycott constituted a suppression of speech; that he would not apologize for his remarks; and that the reaction to his praise of Trump revealed a double standard since his appearance at the Obama White House in 2012 garnered no controversy.

Later on Fox Business during an interview he began by telling the host that he was doing a great job he said the boycott was a reflection, I believe, of the division that exists today in our country ... this great divide is killing our nation were tearing down statues of Jesus Christ.

Abraham Lincoln had the great quote, A house divided against itself cannot stand. And this can be the destruction of our nation, we are at that point, he said.

In adopting this language, Unanue and his supporters have framed the boycotts as the latest example of an overzealous left that seeks to suppress the expression of everything it doesnt like. Unanues comment about statues of Jesus being attacked evokes Trumps talk of statue-toppling as a sign of a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

Trump has, in recent months, portrayed efforts by anti-racist protesters to pull down or criticize memorials commemorating historical figures who supported slavery, white supremacy, or colonialism as an attack on American values. (There are no signs that statues of Jesus are generally being targeted by protests, but there has been criticism of Eurocentric depictions of his image.) While protesters see these symbols as inappropriate celebrations of Americas history of white supremacy, Trump has tried to argue in highly racialized and nativist language that efforts to remove them represent a totalitarian crackdown on expression of identity.

But this language obscures the issue at hand. Anti-racist protesters arent disputing the right of people to discuss Confederate leaders; theyre protesting their celebration. And similarly, Unanue is not having his views suppressed hes receiving criticism for signaling support for policies that boycotters see as unjust.

Freedom of speech as defined by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to restrictions on state action (specifically Congresss ability to make laws) on the freedom of the public and the press to express their views. Boycotts led by consumers, experts say, fall under protected speech.

Calls for economic boycotts are clearly speech, not the suppression of speech. Consumers have long tied politics to purchasing, and advocating business boycotts is undoubtedly protected speech, Timothy Zick, a professor of government and citizenship at the College of William and Mary Law School, told me. Mr. Unanue runs a large corporation, so it rings hollow to suggest that individual consumers are in any way suppressing his speech.

One relevant precedent here is a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that an NAACP boycott of white merchants in Mississippi seeking to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice, was protected by the First Amendment.

Given that the boycott does not represent an infringement on his First Amendment rights, Unanues more substantive grievance might then appear to be that its unfair for his company to be penalized for his appearing at a presidential event, something hes done before. But this line of thinking is flawed for a number of reasons.

The political climate is vastly different than the last time Unanue appeared at a presidential event: Trump has successfully worked to dramatically polarize American politics for the entirety of his presidency even turning a public health emergency into a partisan war and thus voluntary affiliation with his administration is rarely, if ever, perceived as neutral.

That polarization has been accomplished in part through Trumps denigration of the USs Latinx community, from the moment he kicked off his first presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals to his recent inability to address record-high Latinx unemployment. And Trumps immigration policy has targeted Latinx people in particular featuring, for example, harsh detainment policies like child separation that violate international human rights standards.

This is only one small chapter in a much wider problem of polarization over a host of issues, Mugambi Jouet, a professor who specializes in polarization at McGill University, told me, noting that the fundamental issues at play here are the question of immigration and xenophobic discourse and agenda of the Trump administration.

Unanue has chosen to jump into the political fray at every juncture of this episode. Crucially, he chose not only to affiliate with Trump, but also praised the president in strong terms. And then Unanue went on to do two distinctly chummy interviews on Fox News where he said people criticizing him were the real source of division in the country.

The speed and intensity at which the backlash came is a function of this polarization after three years of the Trump administration, very few Americans have ambivalent feelings about the president but the boycotts themselves are an outgrowth of anger at the policies and behavior Jouet outlined.

Gustavo Arellano, author of Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America, told the New York Times that Unanues comments were a betrayal for many in the Latinx community who see Trump as the antithesis of Latinos, in fact, as the enemy.

For Unanue the leader of a brand that represents nurture and community and family and most importantly the kitchen for Latinx Americans, according to Arellano to endorse a president who has caused that community, and other communities of color, so much pain brings many a great deal of distress. Not only because Unanue said Trump himself was incredible, but because with his praise, Unanue seemed to endorse the presidents damaging policies.

Also of concern to those boycotting Goya are Unanues actions not just his willingness to seek the friendly confines of Fox News, but his financial contributions to lawmakers who have enacted right-wing policies. Per CNNs David Goldman:

Unanue has donated to Republicans in recent years, including $6,000 to the Republican National Committee and $1,000 to former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2017 when he was running for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Unanue also gave $2,300 to New Jerseys Democratic Senator Robert Menendez in 2010.

Roberts brother Peter, who serves as Goyas executive vice president, gave $100,000 to the anti-abortion National Right to Life Victory fund in 2012. And other Unanue family members who are shareholders of Goya have given thousands of dollars to other, mostly Republican candidates and politicians, including Trump.

Unanue remains free to express his political opinions. He took advantage of this freedom at the White House, and again on Fox News. What hes witnessing with a boycott is not an agenda to prevent him from speaking his mind, but a rejection among a vocal set of fellow citizens of the ideas and endorsements hes chosen to align himself with.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Read more here:

Goya Foods CEO says the boycott over his praise of Trump is a suppression of speech - Vox.com

TUNIS As Tunisia battled the coronavirus pandemic in May, and millions in the North African country found themselves confined to their homes, a lighthearted Facebook post about the virus caught Emna Charguis eye and brought a brief moment of laughter in a period of uncertainty.

The Sourate Corona, a design that appears to have been created in France, delivered a simple wash your hands message framed in recognizable green contours and adorned with virus symbols, mimicking the style of a Quranic verse. Ms. Chargui, 27, shared the post.

But what was meant as a simple quip about the outbreak has become a fight for Ms. Charguis freedom of expression that could result in a prison sentence.

This week, Ms. Chargui was found guilty of inciting hatred between religions, and sentenced to six months in jail and a $700 fine for the post, in a case that has raised questions about the extent to which freedom of speech is protected in the country. Hundreds have now shared the same image along with the hashtag #FreeEmnaChargui in solidarity with the young woman.

Ms. Charguis case has drawn little attention in the country, aside from rights groups calling for her release: The coronavirus pandemic dominates the news cycle, along with the abrupt resignation on Wednesday of the prime minister, Elyes Fakhfakh, just months after he was sworn into office.

But rights organizations have warned that the ruling against Ms. Chargui could set a dangerous precedent in a country that has been hailed as a rare example of democratic success since the Arab Spring in 2011, but where discussions of religion remain taboo.

Ahmed Benchemsi, the communications director for Human Rights Watch in the Middle East and North Africa, called the ruling a setback for freedom of expression in a country that has otherwise made great strides on the path to democracy.

Tunisia, which enforced a nationwide lockdown and closed its borders in mid-March, has fared better than some of its neighbors in containing the spread of the coronavirus, with 50 deaths and 1,326 confirmed cases as of Friday.

Ms. Chargui said she had received hundreds of death threats and threats of sexual violence since she first shared the image.

I thought it was a good way to make people aware about washing their hands and be careful with the coronavirus, with a style that everyone knows, she said in a telephone interview on Wednesday after her sentencing, which her lawyers have appealed.

I did not even think about how big this would get when I shared it, she added.

Ms. Chargui, who said she considers herself an atheist, has since deleted the initial post but maintains that she is within her rights to express her personal beliefs.

My mother wears the veil, she is Muslim, and she supports me, she said. I want to be able to live in my country and show that you can be a non-Muslim as well.

Ms. Charguis appeal is likely to be heard by a court in September or October, and she remains free until then.

Tunisia has been praised for a successful democratic transition, despite some political instability, after the Arab Spring uprising that gripped the nation and ultimately toppled the longtime autocratic president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Last year, the country of nearly 12 million people completed its second set of free presidential elections since the revolution.

Since the transition to a democratic system, state prosecutors have pursued some individuals for harming religion in 2011 and 2012, including two atheists who were sentenced to seven years of jail time for sharing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. (The two were granted presidential pardons two years later.)

But such cases have dwindled after a new Constitution was introduced in 2014 that provides protection of religious freedom and freedom of speech, among other personal liberties.

Yet for some, Ms. Chargui crossed a red line in sharing an image mimicking the sacred text, according to Amna Guellali, Amnesty Internationals Tunis-based deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Some of the comments on Facebook show that what she did is still taboo, even for progressive people, said Ms. Guellali, who said the decision was disproportionate to the perceived offense.

For now, as Ms. Chargui waits for a ruling on her appeal, her life is filled with uncertainty.

Her landlord, she said, had ordered her family to leave the house they have been renting in Tunis for 10 years, because he wants nothing to do with us.

Lilia Blaise reported from Tunis and Elian Peltier from London.

Read this article:

Tunisian Woman Sentenced to Prison Over Joke Alluding to the Quran - The New York Times

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) wishes to express its concerns over the actions by the police using specific laws against activists, politicians, journalists and human rights defenders for exercising their freedom of expression.

Suhakam is of the view that the enjoyment of freedom of expression should only be restricted as provided by the law to the extent necessary and proportionate to achieve legitimate aims such as national security and public order. Restrictive laws which are essential for political stability, racial harmony and economic prosperity cannot be used as tools to restrict any political contestation and peoples mobilisation against it.

Suhakam notes that Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act and laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and Sections 504 and 505 of the Penal Code and The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) are being used to censor, intimidate, silence critics and curtail freedom of expression and speech.

Suhakam is concerned with the ongoing use of restrictive laws, which are not in line with human rights principles as expounded in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia on freedom of opinion and expression. Anyone exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression should not be made to suffer or be fearful of retaliation or intimidation.

Therefore, Suhakam calls on the government to:

Suhakam wishes to remind the government of its duty and responsibility to protect the peoples right to free speech, in line with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, as a democratic nation should be.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.

View post:

Protect freedom of speech and expression - Suhakam - Aliran