In May, 2020, Frances National Assembly passed a bill aimed at regulating online hate speech but what passed into law just two months later looked nothing like the proposal the government had initially hoped to put in place.

The legislation ran into the same type of resistance that these efforts have been meeting from free-speech advocates around the world. In the case of France, however, the decisive blow was delivered by the courts.

Among other things, the French Constitutional Council struck down a provision that would oblige social-media companies to remove hate speech from their platforms within 24 hours of a complaint. The court found this to be a breach of the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

Story continues below advertisement

Because the government was planning to establish a serious financial penalty (up to $1.7-million) for any company that didnt take down the offensive content in the allotted time under the law, the court felt this might compel some platform operators to be risk-averse and take down material that was flagged as dangerous but ultimately didnt meet a hate-speech threshold. In other words, the threat of a fine would incite a form of self-censorship.

As a result, the legislation was defanged of many of its major consequences when it became law in July, 2020.

Now, Canadas federal government is making its own foray into this realm. Ottawa is expected to introduce hate-speech legislation before Parliament rises later this month. With an election widely expected in the fall, however, any new bill will likely die on the order paper. Meantime, groups on both sides of the hate speech-free speech debate will be able to hone their arguments for the day its reintroduced, should the Liberals get that opportunity down the road.

Canadians have bore witness to the dangers of online hate. It was a factor in the murder of six men at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, and in killings around the world, most notably the slaughter of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, two years ago. Those are some of the incidents that have garnered broad attention. But online hate is everywhere, comes in all forms and targets many different groups.

And its beyond time that we, as a country, did something about it.

That is not to say that anything about introducing laws to safeguard us from this evil is easy. (Though in theory, you would think it should be.) There are legitimate concerns that such laws could be so all-encompassing in scope they put excessive discretion in the hands of government, and before you know it, were talking a redux of George Orwells 1984.

But to the extent this might happen especially in the early days under a hypothetical new hate-speech regime it is worth it. Avoiding the matter until you come up with language that makes all sides happy would be folly. Who knows how many more men (and to a lesser extent women) will be radicalized online in the meantime. If other governments efforts are any indication, what matters is that the work begins now.

Story continues below advertisement

Indeed, the French had modelled much of their original online hate bill on what the Germans passed into law in 2018, amid great pushback from free-speechers. But Angela Merkels government prevailed. Now, any company that doesnt remove obviously illegal material within 24 hours can face a penalty of up to $73-million, proving that Germanys government is serious about cracking down on hate, no doubt motivated by the disturbing rise of far-right extremist groups in the country.

For his part, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has indicated that the legislation the federal government introduces will compel online operators to monitor and remove material deemed illegal in a timely manner or risk facing a fine. What timely manner means remains to be seen; the same goes for the type of penalty platform operators could face. But it has to be a number that means something.

The proliferation of those holding radical views shaped by a broader white nationalist movement should concern us all. It is a mortal danger to civil society and we must insist that any means by which these thoughts and ideas are being given broad exposure be brought under intense scrutiny and control.

It is no longer good enough to let social-media companies police themselves; thats clearly not working. Thats why governments need to step into the breach fraught as that may be.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Link:

Opinion: Canada needs a tough online hate speech law now - The Globe and Mail

The government of IndianPrime MinisterNarendra Modiis in a battle withU.S.tech firms over a new set ofonlinespeech rulesthatit has enactedfor the nationofnearly1.4billion.

The rulesrequire companies to restrict a range of topicson theirservices,comply withgovernment takedown orders andidentifythe original source of informationshared.If the companiesfail tocomply, tech firm employees can be held criminally liable.

The escalation of tensions between Modis government and tech firms, activists say, could result inthecurtailmentof Indians online speech.

Absent a change in direction, the future of free speech in the worlds largest democracy is increasingly imperiled, said Samir Jain, director of policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a digital rights advocacy group.

Users will have less freedom of expression and less access to news and entertainment that is unapproved by the government. The rules will thereby undermine Indian democracy,Jain toldVOA.

At the center of the battle is Twitter, which asked for a three-month extensiontocomply withthenew IT rules that went into effect May 25.

On May 24, New Delhi policeattemptedto deliver a noticeto Twitters office, which was closedat the time,andthenreleased a video ofofficers entering the building and searching the officeson localTV channels.

In a tweetdays later, Twitter said itwas concerned by recent events regarding our employees in India and the potential threat to freedom of expression for the people we serve.

We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global terms of service, as well as with core elements of the new IT rules,thecompanysaid.

Earlier this month,the government sent a letter to Twitter sayingit was giving the companyone final notice adding that if Twitter fails to comply, there will be unintended consequences, according to NPR, which obtained the letter.

It is beyond belief that Twitter Inc.hasdoggedlyrefused to create mechanisms that will enable the people of India to resolve their issues on the platform in a timely and transparentmanner and through fair processes by India based clearly identified resources, the letter said.

The Indian government is pushing back on criticism that its new rules restrict online speech.

Protecting free speech in India is not the prerogative of only a private, for-profit, foreign entity like Twitter, but it is the commitment of the worlds largest democracy and its robust institutions, Indias Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said in a statement.

Some who are critical of the governments new IT rules are also skeptical of the tech industrys response.

It isnot an existential crisis as everyone will have us believe, saidMishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of Indias Software Freedom Law Center.Choudhary saiduserswill beforcedto stayon the sidelines, rather than taking an active role in discussions about their basic rights.

Some of the companies are still playing the game of we are a sales officeor our servers are in California, frustrating anyone who comes to their legitimate defense as well,Choudharysaid.

India has a long tradition of free speech,and itstech savvy market is attractive for U.S. tech firmslooking to expand.Although the Indian constitution protects certainrights tofreedom ofspeech,it has restrictions.Expressions are bannedthat threatenthe sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Even before the recent tensions between tech firms and the government, India was among the top nations in the worldseekingto restrict online speech.From Jan. 1, 2020,to June 1, 2020, India wasone ofthe top five countriesaskingTwitterto remove content.

For example, afterviolent protestson Jan. 26thinvolving farmersunhappy with new agricultural laws,the Modi government demandedTwitter block 500 accounts, includingthose ofjournalists,activistsand opposition leaders. Twitter didso, and then eventually reversedcourse only to receiveanoncompliancenotice,according to acompanystatement.

Several Indian journalistsfaced charges of sedition over their reporting and online posts following the protest by farmers.Among them is theexecutiveeditor of theCaravan magazine, Vinod K. Joseand although his Twitter handle iscurrently active, itwas withheld in India this year.

The government isalsoparticularly sensitive about criticism of its handling of the coronavirus, asking that social media firms remove mention of the B.1617 variant as the Indian variant. In May,the government ordered social media firms to remove any mention of the Indian variant. The variant first reported in India is now called Delta, according to the World Health Organization.

Earlier this month, Twittercomplied witha request from the government to block theTwitter account of Punjabi-born Jaswinder Singh Bains, aliasJazzyB, a rapper.While Twitter informed him that he had been blocked forreportedly violatingIndias Information Technology Act, he said he believes he was blocked for supporting the farmers in their protests, according to media reports.

JasonPielemeier,director of policy and strategy at theGlobal Network Initiative, an alliance of tech companies supporting freedom of expression online,wroteto the MeitY, calling attention to many issues with the new rules.

Each of these concerns on its own can negatively impact freedom of expression and privacy in India, he wrote. Together, they create significant risk of undermining digital rights and trust in Indias regulatory approach to the digital ecosystem.

Twitterisntthe only tech firm affected by new laws.WhatsApp,the encrypted messaging appowned by Facebook,filed a lawsuitin Mayagainst the Indian governmentarguing that the new rules allow for mass surveillance.According to the lawsuit,the new rules areillegal andseverely undermine the right to privacyof its users.

At issue forWhatsAppis that under the new rules, encryption would have to be removed, and according to The Guardian, messages would have to be in atraceabledatabase.

Go here to see the original:

Indian Government in Standoff with Twitter Over Online Speech - Voice of America

The UK is ruled by a government that struggles with reality. Whether the consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland, the implications of a herd immunity policy for a coronavirus-type pandemic, or the result of building a coal mine in response to the climate emergency, Johnsons government is constitutionally incapable of making its rhetoric line up with the real world. But, while these other examples may be more harmful in the long-term, the most absurd example of this Conservative governments obtuseness might its inability to wrap its head around the universality of rights like freedom of speech.

When Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, discovered on Tuesday that Magdalen College Oxfords MCR the student body representing its graduate students had voted to take down a print of the Queen from their common room, his response was not to shrug and say that students can decorate their common spaces in any way they see fit. Instead, he tweeted an outraged statement, criticising the decision as absurd, and praising the Queen as a symbol of what is best about the UK.

For those of us aware that the Education Secretarys rants on freedom of speech are arrant nonsense, it is easy to dismiss him as a tragic joke, Frank Spencer from Some Mothers Do Have Em incarnated and elevated to an unjustifiably high office of state. The interior design choices of a student body even one at as illustrious an institution as Magdalen College should never spark a response from one of the most senior politicians in the UK. It is equally easy to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup, with right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and Daily Express splashing the controversy over their front pages in a desperate attempt to spark yet another battle in the culture war.

But we should not forget the more serious implications that such an attitude towards free speech, as well as towards other rights and liberties, can have, especially on those who are particularly vulnerable to abuses of state power, such as refugees and asylum seekers. One such group are those asylum seekers kept at Napier Barracks, which was controversially repurposed as accommodation for them by the Home Office last autumn.

Even though Public Health England warned the Home Office that the conditions would be unsafe given the pandemic, it forced refugees into overcrowded dormitories, with almost four hundred residents, at one point, living at the facility, while reports of inadequate food, hunger strikes, and substandard hygiene continued to leak out. For the Home Office to ever house refugees in overcrowded, unsanitary barracks is distressing. For it to choose to do so in the middle of a pandemic is callous and negligent.

Inevitably, the High Court ruled last week that housing migrants in such squalid conditions was irrational, and that the Home Office had unlawfully failed to ensure a standard of living which was adequate for the health of the claimants. But despite this criticism from the Court, the Home Office has simply interfered further with the residents rights, with its contractors allegedly forbidding them from speaking to the media about living conditions in the barracks, and warning them that if they do so, it may harm their chances of being granted asylum.

It is a tragic irony that as the UK is welcoming Hong-Kongers to its shores, offering visas to those at risk of persecution from the Chinese government for speaking out against Xi Jinpings authoritarian regime, it is simultaneously attacking the freedom of speech of those hailing from less desirable countries. If freedom of speech means anything, it must include the right to criticise the government even if it is the government that you are simultaneously asking to grant you refuge.

More harmful, however, than this petty intimidation of refugees many of who, given their precarious position, will be deterred from speaking about their living conditions is the refusal of the government to effectively engage with the decision of the High Court. Rather than admitting the barracks are unfit for purpose, closing them, and rehousing the refugees and asylum seekers in safe accommodation, the Home Office has continued to use the barracks with little apparent improvement in conditions. Minnie Rahman, campaigns director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants told the Financial Times yesterday that residents are still being housed in dorms of 14contravening public health advice, and that sanitation at the camp remains poor.

Nor does the reaction of Priti Patel in the House of Commons earlier this week suggest that this situation is likely to improve. Addressing the chamber, she refused to apologise for re-purposing the barracks in the face of warnings from PHE, and instead implicitly suggested that the asylum seekers should be grateful for what they received, giving accommodation to people who otherwise would have been sleeping in dirty makeshift tents in France and other European countries.

Setting aside the inexplicable, yet inevitable, British exceptionalism in her statement, rights are not contingent on a persons past living conditions, nor are they contingent on what passes muster in other nations. The Home Office had an ethical and more importantly now has a legal obligation to remedy the living conditions. Instead, the Home Secretary is doggedly denying the only rational conclusion, which is that the barracks must be closed, and is instead trying to shift the narrative through criticising the media for glamourising migrants crossing the Channel and encouraging the police to get back to zapping criminals.

Rights and liberties are universal. Just as a college MCR is free to put up a picture of the Queen for any reason, so it is equally free to take it down. The fact that some may view their reasons as feeble in Magdalen MCRs case, because the Queen is apparently a symbol of colonial oppression does not justify the government wading into student politics, or mean that senior fellows at the college should be required to profess loyalty to the monarch. And much as students at the University of Oxford have the right to speak out against the Queen, or the institution of monarchy, or the government, so too do asylum seekers, even as they seek refuge on British shores from persecution and oppression in their mother country. Indeed, it is because of freedoms like this that refugees risk life and limb to find safe harbour in the UK. If the government had any decency, it would celebrate such freedoms. Instead, it degrades them.

Read the original here:

Free speech and the culture wars The Justice Gap - thejusticegap.com

The name, the For the People Act, has an elegant simplicity. The number, HR 1, does too. Democrats call it a first-aid kit for a republic where big money, gerrymandering and voter intimidation have the body politic on life support.

It is that, in part. But some of the medicine packed in this gargantuan legislation will undercut Americas foundational freedoms. And that is why we do not lament the bills demise at the hands of Joe Manchin, who has said he cannot support an effort to kill the filibuster to push it and other bills through the Senate.

HR 1 does some very good things. It would create automatic voter registration, restore federal Voting Rights Act protections, override state voter suppression efforts, attack corrosive gerrymandering, and fix some flawed federal ethics rule. Normally, it would be worth holding ones nose about the bad parts to win passage of such provisions. Here, though, the bad parts are utterly unacceptable.

To stop dark money from infecting elections, the bill would dramatically expand regulation of speech, requiring disclosure of the names and addresses of donors who give $10,000 or more to groups engaging in campaign-related disbursements. That means that any organization whether dedicated to environmental protection, abortion rights, racial justice, public education, you name it would have to list its big donors any time it runs any ad praising or criticizing a candidate or elected official.

As American Civil Liberties Union lawyers have written, We know from history that people engaged in politically charged issues become political targets and are often subject to threats of harassment or even violence. The effect would be tying the tongues of advocacy organizations on matters of vital importance.

Meanwhile, the bill would broaden existing prohibitions on paid advocacy on foreign nationals that would prohibit many noncitizens from taking part in broader civic life. (While money isnt the same as speech, without money, speech often fails to influence public debate.) Thats almost surely unconstitutional. It is certainly wrong.

Read the original:

Editorial: Against For the People: Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed - Yahoo News

Mackubin Owens| Guest columnist

Mackubin Owens, of Newport, a monthly contributor, is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.

The latest battlefield in Americas culture war is critical race theory,a pernicious and reactionary theory that, until recently, was confined to academia. No longer. CRT now infects most U.S. institutions,corporations and the government, including the military.

CRT can be traced to Karl Marx and his epigones, manifesting itself first as critical theory, a Marxist philosophical framework that rejects the validity of concepts such as rationality and objective truth. It posits two categories: oppressed and oppressors. In Marxs original formulations, the lens was economic class. The bourgeoisie was the oppressor class and the proletariat were the oppressed. CRT substitutes race for class. According to CRT, the entire system of a society is defined by those who have power (whites) and those who dont (people of color).

Several states have now sought to ban the teaching of CRT. In response, CRTs advocates make three arguments: first, CRT issimply a benign academic theorysupporting the latest stage in the struggle for equal civil rights; second, banning the teaching of CRT is an assault on free speech; and third, opposing CRT is an attempt to whitewash American history.

Regarding the first, CRT is fundamentally at odds with the principles that underpinned all advances in the rights of Black Americans, from the Civil War constitutional amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:that all Americans should be treated equally, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. These are philosophically linked to the Declaration of Independence, which holdsthat human beings are equal in their possession of natural rights and that, accordingly, no one has the natural right to rule over another without the latters consent.

But CRT attacks the American Founding. Advocates of CRT do not wish to fulfill the promises of the American Founding, which they regard as racist. Instead, they want to replace the principles of the Founding with something radically different, for instance, replacing such concepts as equality with equity and subverting the meaning of justice.

Regarding free speech, CRTemploys a rhetorical tool developed by the neo-Marxist philosopherHebert Marcuse: repressive tolerance. According to Marcuse, totolerate all ideas the essence of reasonable discourse that traditionally has defined the mission of education is, in fact, repressive, since it does not privilege the correct ideas. True tolerance, Marcuse argued, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

Adopting Marcuses logic, CRTbrooks no dissent. To argue against CRT is itself fundamentally racist,evidence of the dissenters white fragility, unconscious bias, or internalized white supremacy.Thus rather offering a perspective that invites debate, CRT education is essentially ideological indoctrination.

Finally, opponents of CRT do not want to whitewash American history. But perspective matters. Slavery is Americas original sin, but when the United States was founded in 1776, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. Americas Founding principles made the abolition of slavery a moral imperative. Jim Crow was indeed a terrible stain on America, especially as it was nationalized by Progressives such as President Woodrow Wilson. The Tulsa Massacre must never be forgotten.

But CRT ignores what Frederick Douglass said of President Abraham Lincoln: Most Americans of all races have risen above their prejudices, striving to bring American practice into accord with American principles regarding justice.

CRT demeans African Americans by stripping them of all agency, treating them as simply inanimate objects, helpless victims of impersonal forces. It also essentially absolves politicians of bad policy.

But in the end, CRT is nothing more than a return to 1850s-style racism as espoused by John Calhoun and Chief Justice Roger Taney in his infamous Dred Scott decision. It is divisive; it fosters racial hatred by trafficking in racial stereotypes, collective guilt, racial segregationand race-based harassment. It rejects Martin Luther Kings hope that we should be judged, not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

Follow this link:

Opinion/Owens: Making the case against 'critical race theory' - The Providence Journal

Two artists have been selected to honor Worcester icon Abby Kelley Foster and are creating a lighted lectern sculpture that will be placed downtown, Worcester city officials said.

Ann Hirsch and Jeremy Angier have been selected by the Public Art Working Group to complete the citys Abby Kelley Foster Artistic Node Project, officials said in a statement issued Tuesday.

Kelley Foster was a Worcester resident who served as a prominent leader in the abolitionist and womens rights movement in the 19th century, defending free speech and advocating for equality and the abolishment of slavery.

She fought abuse to exercise the right to use her voice in order to bring about revolutionary cultural change, said Hirsch. Kelley Foster teaches us that the struggle for equal rights far outweighs personal costs, and her fearlessness and dedication should inspire us all, whichever cause we hold closest to our hearts.

The sculpture will feature a perforated lectern in metal, illuminated from below and engraved with text taken from Kelley Fosters records that highlights using ones voice for social change amidst adversity. It will be at the corner of Main and Walnut streets and is planned for public activation in October, the statement said.

Hirsch said the sculpture will serve as a potent symbol of Kelley Fosters story, and will bring us closer to the woman who, in Lucy Stones words, earned for us all the right of free speech.

Last year, the city issued a call to artists for the Abby Kelley Foster Artistic Node Project, looking for an art installation recognizing Kelley Foster, the Womens Rights Movement, or Revolution as potential themes. The location of the installation area was the site of the first National Womens Rights Convention in 1850.

Between its location and its long history with activism, Worcester was the site of the first two National Womens Rights Conventions in 1850 and 1851, and Worcester County was home to many suffragists, said Erin Williams, the citys cultural development officer. Abby Kelley Foster was one of these suffragists and abolitionists. Completion of this project will honor her and the courageous women who led the way for social justice, and encourage those who see it to learn more about the woman, the womens rights movement, and Worcesters history.

The project is part of the Main Street Reimagined Initiative, which aims to improve the existing streetscapes and activate public spaces through art installations.

By tapping into the creativity and passion of artists, we are able to celebrate, honor, and share our history in ways outside textbooks and museums publicly, free of charge, and accessible to all who will pass by the area, said Worcester City Manager Edward M. Augustus Jr. Im looking forward to seeing the Abby Kelley Foster project once it is completed, and to similar upcoming initiatives.

Related Content:

Read more:

Worcesters Abby Kelley Foster to be honored with lighted lectern sculpture created by two artists - MassLive.com

The name, the For the People Act, has an elegant simplicity. The number, HR 1, does, too. Democrats call it a first-aid kit for a republic where big money, gerrymandering and voter intimidation have the body politic on life support.

It is that, in part. But some of the medicine packed in this gargantuan legislation will undercut Americas foundational freedoms. And that is why we do not lament the bills demise at the hands of Joe Manchin, who has said he cannot support an effort to kill the filibuster to push it and other bills through the Senate.

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

kAmw# ` 5@6D D@>6 G6CJ 8@@5 E9:?8D] xE H@F=5 4C62E6 2FE@>2E:4 G@E6C C68:DEC2E:@?[ C6DE@C6 7656C2= '@E:?8 #:89ED p4E AC@E64E:@?D[ @G6CC:56 DE2E6 G@E6C DFAAC6DD:@? 677@CED[ 2EE24< 4@CC@D:G6 86CCJ>2?56C:?8[ 2?5 7:I D@>6 7=2H65 7656C2= 6E9:4D CF=6] }@C>2==J[ :E H@F=5 36 H@CE9 9@=5:?8 @?6D ?@D6 23@FE E96 325 A2CED E@ H:? A2DD286 @7 DF49 AC@G:D:@?D] w6C6[ E9@F89[ E96 325 A2CED 2C6 FEE6C=J F?2446AE23=6]k^Am

kAm%@ DE@A 52C< >@?6J 7C@> :?764E:?8 6=64E:@?D[ E96 3:== H@F=5 5C2>2E:42==J 6IA2?5 C68F=2E:@? @7 DA6649[ C6BF:C:?8 5:D4=@DFC6 @7 E96 ?2>6D 2?5 255C6DD6D @7 5@?@CD H9@ 8:G6 S`_[___ @C >@C6 E@ 8C@FAD 6?828:?8 😕 42>A2:8?C6=2E65 5:D3FCD6>6?ED] %92E >62?D E92E 2?J @C82?:K2E:@? H96E96C 565:42E65 E@ 6?G:C@?>6?E2= AC@E64E:@?[ 23@CE:@? C:89ED[ C24:2= ;FDE:46[ AF3=:4 65F42E:@?[ J@F ?2>6 :E H@F=5 92G6 E@ =:DE :ED 3:8 5@?@CD 2?J E:>6 :E CF?D 2?J 25 AC2:D:?8 @C 4C:E:4:K:?8 2 42?5:52E6 @C 6=64E65 @77:4:2=]k^Am

kAmpD p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? =2HJ6CD 92G6 HC:EE6?[ (6 9:DE@CJ E92E A6@A=6 6?82865 😕 A@=:E:42==J 492C865 :DDF6D 364@>6 A@=:E:42= E2C86ED 2?5 2C6 @7E6? DF3;64E E@ E9C62ED @7 92C2DD>6?E @C 6G6? G:@=6?46] %96 67764E H@F=5 36 EJ:?8 E96 E@?8F6D @7 25G@424J @C82?:K2E:@?D @? >2EE6CD @7 G:E2= :>A@CE2?46]k^Am

kAm|62?H9:=6[ E96 3:== H@F=5 3C@256? 6I:DE:?8 AC@9:3:E:@?D @? A2:5 25G@424J @? 7@C6:8? ?2E:@?2=D E92E H@F=5 AC@9:3:E >2?J ?@?4:E:K6?D 7C@> E2<:?8 A2CE :? 3C@256C 4:G:4 =:76] W(9:=6 >@?6J :D?E E96 D2>6 2D DA6649[ H:E9@FE >@?6J[ DA6649 @7E6? 72:=D E@ :?7=F6?46 AF3=:4 5632E6]X %92ED 2=>@DE DFC6=J F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2=] xE 😀 46CE2:?=J HC@?8]k^Am

kAmkDEC@?8m}6H *@C< s2:=J }6HD W%}$Xk^DEC@?8mk^Am

See original here:

Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed - Grand Haven Tribune

A Fathers Day gathering in Andover featuring Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw has been called off due to planned protests, the Massachusetts GOP said.

These protests would have caused a major disturbance in my neighborhood, and I do not want my guests, my neighbors, or Congressman Crenshaw to be subjected to a chaotic and potentially volatile situation, said party Chairman Jim Lyons, who planned to host the gathering as his home. While the event is now canceled, we are nonetheless committed to hosting Congressman Crenshaw at some point in the future.

The fight against censorship, cancel culture, and the far-lefts obsession with silencing anyone who dares to express their right to free speech and free expression continues, Lyons said in a statement. The threat is real.

Crenshaw, 37, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in Afghanistan, has called for Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting womens right to abortion, to be overturned.

He also has called for conservatives to work for stricter election laws at the state level.

Excerpt from:

Mass GOP cancels fundraiser with Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw over threat of protests - Boston Herald

Washington, DC In advance of the bilateral meeting between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Representative Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11) released the following statement:

As a former Russian policy officer in the US Navy, I know that the only thing that Vladimir Putin understands is power-politics. For years now, Vladimir Putin has operated with impunity because of the former administration's failure to hold him accountable. Whether it is the harboring of cybercriminals, attacks on political free speech, especially on opposition leaders like Alexei Navalny, or military provocations throughout the region, Putin has operated as if there are zero consequences for his actions.

It is reassuring to know that there is finally an American president with the ability and the willingness to hold Putin accountable. As President Biden enters into tomorrows bilateral meeting, the message will be clear: the United States will no longer accept Putins aggressive support for violations of international law.

###

Follow this link:

Representative Sherrill Statement on Biden-Putin Meeting - Mikie Sherrill

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide. Bikas Das/AP hide caption

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide.

MUMBAI AND SAN FRANCISCO One night last month, police crowded into the lobby of Twitter's offices in India's capital New Delhi. They were from an elite squad that normally investigates terrorism and organized crime, and said they were trying to deliver a notice alerting Twitter to misinformation allegedly tweeted by opposition politicians.

But they arrived at 8 p.m. And Twitter's offices were closed anyway, under a coronavirus lockdown. It's unclear if they ever managed to deliver their notice. They released video of their raid afterward to Indian TV channels and footage shows them negotiating with security guards in the lobby.

The May 24 police raid which Twitter later called an "intimidation tactic" was one of the latest salvos in a confrontation between the Indian government and social media companies over what online content gets investigated or blocked, and who gets to decide.

While the Indian constitution includes the right to freedom of speech, it also bans expression or publication of anything that risks India's security, public order or "decency." But the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced a long list of new IT rules going beyond this. They require social media platforms to warn users not to post anything that's defamatory, obscene, invasive of someone else's privacy, encouraging of gambling, harmful to a child or "patently false or misleading" among other things.

If the government orders it, platforms are required to take down such material. The rules also require platforms to identify the original source of information that's shared online or, in the case of messaging apps, forwarded among users. Company executives can be held criminally liable if the platforms don't comply.

Many tech companies are aghast. They say these rules violate their users' freedom of expression and privacy, and amount to censorship. Free speech advocates warn that such rules are prone to politicization and could be used to target government critics.

India's Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad (left) and Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar announce new regulations for social media companies and streaming websites in New Delhi in February. India's government has warned Twitter to comply with the country's new social media regulations, which critics say give the government more power to police online content. Manish Swarup/AP hide caption

India's Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad (left) and Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar announce new regulations for social media companies and streaming websites in New Delhi in February. India's government has warned Twitter to comply with the country's new social media regulations, which critics say give the government more power to police online content.

But India with nearly 1.4 billion people is one of the tech companies' biggest markets. The country's hundreds of millions of internet users present a ripe business opportunity for companies such as Twitter and Facebook, especially since they're banned from operating in China.

And India's government like others around the world knows this, says Jason Pielemeier, policy and strategy director at the Global Network Initiative, a coalition of tech companies and other groups supporting free expression online.

"Over time, the governments have become more and more sophisticated in terms of their understanding of the pressure points that large internet companies have and are sensitive to," he says. "Those companies have also, to some extent, become more sensitive as they have increased the revenue that they generate in markets all around the world. And so where you see companies having large user bases and governments increasingly dissatisfied with those companies' responsiveness, we tend to see situations like the one that is currently flaring up in India."

Some companies, including Google, Facebook and LinkedIn, have reportedly complied, at least partially, with the new rules, which took effect May 25. Others are lobbying for changes. Twitter says it's "making every effort to comply" but has asked for an extension to do so. WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, has sued the Indian government.

The police raid last month on Twitter's offices in New Delhi came amid squabbles between India's two biggest political parties, accusing each other of spreading misinformation.

Politicians from Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, had been tweeting screenshots of what they claimed was a "media toolkit" used by their main rival, the Indian National Congress party, to amplify online complaints about Modi's handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Twitter's rules about platform manipulation prohibit users from "artificially amplifying" messages.

But the screenshot BJP politicians were tweeting of this alleged "toolkit" was fake. Some of India's most reputable fact-checkers concluded it was a forgery. After its own investigation, Twitter slapped a "manipulated media" label on those tweets by BJP politicians.

The government then asked Twitter to remove that label. Twitter did not. Police raided its offices three days later.

"We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global Terms of Service, as well as with core elements of the new IT Rules," a Twitter spokesperson wrote in a statement emailed May 27 to NPR and other news organizations.

To many observers, it looked like the Indian government was trying to drag Twitter publicly into a dispute between rival political parties, by sending the police to serve Twitter executives with a notice that could have been sent electronically especially during the pandemic.

"Serving a notice of that kind, in the form that played out, just confirms the idea that this is just theater," said Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of India's Software Freedom Law Center.

Choudhary says the optics are troubling. It looks like the Indian government has rewritten the country's IT rules to endow itself with extraordinary powers to silence its critics online. In February, on orders from the Indian government, Twitter blocked more than 500 accounts but then reversed course when it realized many belonged to journalists, opposition politicians and activists.

More recently, the Indian government demanded that social media companies remove news articles or posts referring to the B.1.617 coronavirus variant as the "Indian variant." (The WHO has since renamed this variant, which was first identified in India, as "Delta").

"The government has been trying to either block handles or curb dissent," Choudhary says. "Both the government and [social media] companies are claiming they're protecting users, when it's convenient for them, but users are really the ones left without much power."

Modi's government published its new IT rules on Feb. 25 and gave social media companies three months to comply. So the rules took effect May 25. Twitter is asking for another three-month extension.

"We will strive to comply with applicable law in India. But, just as we do around the world, we will continue to be strictly guided by principles of transparency, a commitment to empowering every voice on the service, and protecting freedom of expression and privacy under the rule of law," a Twitter spokesperson said in the May 27 statement.

One of the requirements Twitter finds most onerous is that it name an India-based chief compliance officer who would be criminally liable for content on the platform. The company says it's worried about its employees in that situation.

Indian government officials say Twitter has already had three months to comply with this and the rest of the requirements.

"You are a giant, earning billions of dollars globally! You can't find a technological solution?" India's IT minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, recently said on India's CNN-News18 channel.

Prasad acknowledged that India's social media rules might be more onerous than what tech companies are used to in the United States. But India is a place where mob violence has erupted over rumors shared on social media. The government needs to take extra precautions, he said. And big tech companies could comply with these rules, he insisted, if they really wanted to.

"The same Twitter and social media companies are complying with all the requirements in America! In Australia! In Canada! In England!" Prasad said. "But when it comes to India, they have a double standard."

Tech executives have been grilled about misinformation by members of the U.S. Congress. But when India summons them, they often don't show up. Choudhary says this has fueled anger among Indian politicians, who fume that they're not taken seriously.

"The companies say, 'Our servers are in California. So we don't have this information.' Or, 'We can't come and talk to you,'" she says. "That gives the government justification to say, 'How can you monetize our users, but when we want to have a discussion with you, you claim you're only a sales office?'"

India has reason to be sensitive to the threat of being taken advantage of by foreign powers. It has a colonial past. Even before Great Britain ruled India, a foreign corporation, the East India Company, pillaged it for centuries.

Choudhary calls what big tech companies are doing in India "digital colonialism."

"It's now the Silicon Valley 'bros' who think they can tell us what to do and what not to do," Choudhary says.

In a particularly harshly worded statement issued May 27, the Indian government called Twitter a "private, for-profit, foreign entity" that needs to "stop beating around the bush and comply with the laws of the land." It accused Twitter of "seek[ing] to undermine India's legal system" and blamed the company for what it called "rampant proliferation of fake and harmful content against India."

Last weekend, the Indian government appeared to reject Twitter's request for an extension. It sent the company what it called "one final notice" as a "gesture of goodwill," urging the tech giant to comply with the new social media rules. The government warned of "unintended consequences" if Twitter refuses to comply.

Nigeria's government recently banned Twitter after the company took down a tweet from President Muhammadu Buhari that appeared to threaten separatists. There are fears that India could do the same.

For Twitter, that would be a blow not just to its business interests, but to its avowed commitment to fostering public conversation.

"As much as these kinds of centralized corporate platforms can be frustrating in a number of ways, they are, when it comes down to it, the place where the majority of the world interacts," says Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"Years ago, I would have said that companies should stand up to authoritarian governments to tell them, 'Hey, block us if you want to, but we're not going to comply with these restrictions,'" she says. "But as time has gone on, that's become less and less of a viable option. ... For some people, these are really vital channels for accessing a global audience, for reaching people outside of their normal space, especially during the pandemic."

In India, for example, people took to Twitter to source medical supplies and raise money during a devastating COVID-19 resurgence.

On Monday, a Twitter spokesperson told NPR that the company remains "deeply committed to India," has been "making every effort to comply" with the new IT rules and has been sharing its progress with the Indian government.

The same day, Twitter also disclosed to a Harvard University database that it had restricted access within India to four accounts including those of a hip-hop artist and a singer/songwriter that had criticized the Modi government online. To comply with Indian law, Twitter sometimes blocks content in India but allows it to remain visible outside the country.

Twitter and other companies face pressure from other governments too. Around the world, free speech advocates say, there are increasing demands to restrict certain types of speech and for governments to play a greater role in regulating online platforms.

Germany, for example, has a law requiring social media platforms to act quickly to take down illegal speech or face financial penalties.

In the U.S., Democrats are pushing companies to curb misinformation, while Republicans have turned their own complaints about social media censorship into laws like one passed in Florida last month that bars platforms from banning politicians.

Another part of the showdown between India's government and tech companies hinges on privacy.

The government wants to be able to trace misinformation that's shared online. So as part of its new IT rules, it's asking social media companies to be able to identify the "first originator" of any piece of information. It says it will ask for that information only in rare cases where a potential crime is suspected to have been committed.

WhatsApp filed a lawsuit over this last month in the Delhi High Court. The company says it's unable to provide "first originator" information unless it traces every message on its platform which would amount to what it called "a new form of mass surveillance."

"To comply, messaging services would have to keep giant databases of every message you send or add a permanent identity stamp like a fingerprint to private messages with friends, family, colleagues, doctors, and businesses," WhatsApp wrote in an FAQ about traceability on its website. "Companies would be collecting more information about their users at a time when people want companies to have less information about them."

Experts say messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal would likely have to break their end-to-end encryption which ensures only the sender and recipient, not the company or anyone else, can read a message to comply with Indian law. Namrata Maheshwari, an India-based lawyer and policy consultant for the Center for Democracy and Technology, predicts that will have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"This is problematic for users' right to privacy, because the core promise of end-to-end encryption is that users can communicate safely and securely without any unauthorized access by any third party, including the service provider," she says.

Maheshwari says the WhatsApp lawsuit is one of many filed in various high courts across India challenging India's new IT rules. They bring a key third party judges into the ongoing standoff between the Indian government and social media companies. The lawsuits will be decided over several months, or even years.

"As far as the question of who the stronger entity here is, I actually think it's now the Indian courts," she says. "The battleground has moved."

Editor's note: Facebook, Google and LinkedIn are among NPR's financial supporters.

Continue reading here:

India And Tech Companies Clash Over Censorship, Privacy And 'Digital Colonialism' - NPR