Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II

[Editors note: Recently the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the national civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, of his conviction for trespassing that resulted from a 2017 demonstration at the state Legislative Building. Today, in response to the courts decision, Rev. Barber returned to the Legislative Building to offer the following remarks.]

Even though the highest court wont hear us, we must continue to ask, What is the decibel level of free speech? And who determines whether the authorities are disturbed and protestors have to cease their protest in a public building?

On the day of our arrest, I asked the officer that question: How loud can we be? The basic answer was, Somebody says its disturbing them. The Constitution says freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained.

The officers that day said they did not know how loud free speech could be so we asked the court to decide. In essence, we were arrested because someone said our message bothered them. The answer to the question of what was allowable was never answered. None of the work of the General Assembly suffered that day, but the rights of the people did. The people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated, according to the Constitution.

Our aim was to remind our representatives that all political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

I wear arrest as a badge of honor.

If Im charged and convicted for nonviolently standing with the least of these, its an honor.

I, along with other people of faith, are required by the love espoused in our faith to challenge the governments of nations to care for the least of these. The prophets of old told us to say, Woe unto those who legislate evil and rob the poor of their rights and make women and children their prey. Even our Constitution calls us to remind those who hold political power that beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state.

If I am charged with using my preaching voice to demand Medicaid expansion for thousands of poor and low-wage workers while Republican legislators block it, or if Im charged for standing with others to speak out for poor and low wage people to make a minimum living of $15 an hour, I will always fight for the right to stand for voting rights, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, womens rights, and even the free speech rights of my opponents. Im neither perfect nor always right, but as a gospel preacher and a bishop of the church, Im supposed to preach in season and out of season. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is good news to the poor.

The Bible tells me to raise my voice with others like a trumpet. If it means Im charged and eventually have to spend time with others in prison, its a small price to pay. I cannot remain silent while Gods children suffer for no reason other than the poor choices of our elected officials.

Read the original here:

Rev. William Barber: How loud is free speech permitted to be? - The Progressive Pulse

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

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

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its been a long time coming, this bill.

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

And is committed to doing something about it.

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

Evicting Labour for the first time in history.

7

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

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

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

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

Its a hoot.

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

What the hell has happened?

7

We have queues a mile long at our airports.

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

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

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

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

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

Think Ill be spending the summer here in Blighty.

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

King Charles

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

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

He managed to read the Queens Speech.

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

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

Maybe Charlie will make a decent King, then.

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

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

But theres something likeable about our Eurovision contestant Sam Ryder.

7

And hes got a decent voice and a decent tune.

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

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

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

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

Which takes some doing, frankly.

7

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

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

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

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

Hell only resign if he gets a fixed penalty notice.

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

The nerve of the bloke is gobsmacking.

And never has a petard been hoisted higher.

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

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

7

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

You can hold your head up, Peter Andre.

At least it wasnt a Peperami.

Teacher assessment

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

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

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

And do you know, I wonder the same myself.

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

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

Leave the serious exams until A-levels come along.

It would certainly make for a happier house up here.

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

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

7

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

Whyja think we got out in the first place?

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

Oh, and leave our fish alone.

See the rest here:

Weve not had free speech in 20 years. But thats changing... - The US Sun

We expect a great deal of criticism of our new book, Its Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, but we were taken aback by Jeffrey Aaron Snyders misconstrual of its main argument. If you go by Snyder, weve written a deeply flawed book attacking three racists that is bound to get attention because of its bold thesis. Snyder positions himself, in his essays in these pages, as a defender of free speech against left overreach and the excesses of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and he has also written a notable entry in the free speech is threatened by both sides subgenre. Articles like those can help fuel exaggerated perceptions of campus politics, but we do not begrudge him this territory. Its just not our territory. We are not interested in saving free speech: We are interested in saving academic freedom from free speech. Its Not Free Speech explains how academic freedom differs from free speech and why that difference is of great importance in the era of what Richard Hasen calls cheap speech.

At one point, Snyder invokes the authoritarian legislation sweeping the country and snarkily suggests that our time would have been better spent mobilizing resistance to that even though much of Chapter 4, Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory Today?, is devoted to explaining those attacks and their origins. (As it happens, Jennifer does spend her time promoting the African American Policy Forums campaign against those bills.) But the real issue is that Snyder does not grasp the main point of the book. Its Not Free Speech is an argument against the bills and the right-wing movement behind them (calling them a perfect, and perfectly hideous, example of intellectual authoritarianism), precisely because it insists that academic freedom is the collective responsibility of faculty members in their disciplines. It is not something politicians can interfere with without destroying the role of the university in a democratic society (as Jennifer has argued in these pages). Central to the book is the belief that academic-freedom cases must be placed in the hands of faculty peers, not administrators vulnerable to outside political pressures or the courts with their wildly uneven record on academic freedom.

So the issue here is not just a misrepresentation here and a misconstrual there. There is something more important at stake: a real disagreement about the relation of academic freedom to free speech.

But as for those misrepresentations: the most serious concerns Snyders claim that we would rule out of bounds any debate about Brown v. Board of Education. This claim rests on a sloppy reading of two sentences in chapter four: Some things are not worthy of entertaining as if we could pretend they were bloodless. Whether Brown v. Board of Education should have happened is one. The phrase should have happened comes from a Princeton undergraduate, Brittani Telfair, who was arguing that some debates do not make symmetric asks. Black people who have to argue, again and again, against the premises of segregation and Jim Crow are not in a symmetric relation to people whose forebears never experienced segregation and Jim Crow. This is an important and, we hope, by now elementary point about the difference between free speech in theory and free speech in practice. Brittney Cooper made it brilliantly back in 2017 in these pages. Snyder implies that by the logic of our book the kinds of arguments made by Derrick Bell regarding how Black children might conceivably have been better off under Plessy v. Ferguson or by Gloria Ladson-Billings on the price paid for Brown v. Board would be off limits. This strikes us as absurd, and we think will strike careful readers of the book as absurd as well.

Snyder missed that point by focusing on the phrase not worthy of entertaining and ignoring as if we could pretend they were bloodless. He also ignores our citation of our Black colleagues Carolyn Rouse and Mark James, who, in the pages that lead up to those two sentences, explain that debating the virtues of segregation or the benefits of colonialism puts Black people in the position of having to take seriously the belief that racism is and always has been justified and having to pretend that the question is bloodless. Of course debate about Brown v. Board is legitimate. The only ideas were proposing to exclude or to put in the dustbin alongside phrenology and phlogiston are the white supremacist ones that provided the foundations for Jim Crow, for eugenics, and for the Holocaust.

But then, Snyder takes things out of context, while cleverly accusing us of taking things out of context. He writes: The authors refer to legions of racist professors and the entrenched, unshakeable beliefs of the white-supremacist professoriate. Snyder does not explain that the phrase refers to the historians of the Dunning School, who devoted their careers to arguing that Reconstruction failed because Black people are incapable of self-government, and that the second phrase was delivered in the context of a discussion of Gregory Christainsen, now retired from California State University-East Bay, a race realist who taught students that there are measurable differences in the intelligence of various races; that these differences are captured in IQ scores; and that they are attributable to genetics rather than to social variables. Anyone familiar with the legacy of pseudoscientific racism would know that these beliefs are indeed entrenched and unshakeable. (Christainsens field? Economics.) His university ignored student complaints about his courses, as readers of our book will learn. We do not think that the professoriate is packed with Klan members; we do think that there are some zombie ideas that keep making a comeback despite their being repeatedly discredited.

James Yang for The Chronicle

It is fitting, somehow, that when Snyder baselessly accuses us of taking a professors words out of context, the professor in question is the notorious Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania. Snyder objects to our calling Wax a white supremacist: The authors evidence consists of two excerpts, largely stripped of context, from a speech that Wax gave at the 2019 National Conservatism conference. In that speech, which we discuss in detail, Wax promoted a cultural distance nationalism whose premise is that we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance or, more succinctly, our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Snyder writes, Without seeking additional information beyond what they have presented, I am not sure how many people would feel qualified to judge whether Wax is a white supremacist. I dont. But when someone says that white people are better (more civilized, more advanced) than nonwhite people, that is literally white supremacism. We cant imagine what else to call it. (Fortunately, The Chronicle provided a link to Waxs speech in Snyders essay, so curious readers can read her remarks for themselves.)

This disagreement about Wax brings us to another fundamental misrepresentation in Snyders review: the implication that we are the ones calling these shots or ruling anything out of court. We explicitly say that we are not. We are calling for what the American Association of University Professors has long considered best practice: a deliberative process, with authority distributed among a horizontal panel of peers in the relevant fields. Too many cases today, we argue, are decided without such a process and, importantly, this includes the adjunct instructor who can simply not be rehired to appease complaining students, parents, or donors. We think academic-freedom committees can do a better job adjudicating the controversies that pop up almost daily than can an individual provost, a series of tweets, or arguments made in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Free speech as a slogan once served dissenting voices and struggles (the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was about the right to protest the Vietnam War on campus), but thats not how it typically functions today. In the public sphere, it facilitates hate speech and conspiracy theories. Most important, the widespread conflation of free speech and academic freedom makes it incredibly difficult for universities to do their jobs, which is to discriminate between high-quality speech (which refers to disciplinary expertise and is protected by academic freedom) and low-quality speech (which refers to ungrounded opinion).

The First Amendment doesnt demand or expect that speech be responsible or informed in any way, but academic speech speech with a claim to expertise does. That distinction is critical. When commentators ritualistically frame every academic disagreement in terms of free speech, they blur an essential distinction and facilitate the movement by which self-interested and partisan forces actively undermine democracy.

The contribution of Its Not Free Speech is not so much to recognize that content-free ideals like free speech work differently at different times on playing fields that have never been even; many people understand this better than we do. (We turn to the philosopher Charles W. Mills for help with this). Our contribution is, we hope, to think about what these insights about content-free ideals, cheap speech, and who makes judgment calls in the academic arena now mean for how we realize academic freedom. Of course, we are not the only ones trying to think this through. A growing body of work analyzes the relationship of power to academic freedom: We are thinking, for example, of Steven Salaitas Uncivil Rites; Johnny E. Williamss article The Academic Freedom Double Standard: Freedom for Courtiers, Suppression for Critical Scholars in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom; and Reshmi-Dutt Ballerstadt and Kakali Bhattacharyas collection, Civility, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education.

We welcome spirited discussion of Its Not Free Speech. We hope, though, that it will be discussion aimed at addressing some of the serious problems we face in academe and in democracy.

Original post:

Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Much is made of Elon Musk taking over complete control of the online platform Twitter in the next three to six months. Musk has made no secret of his disdain for some of Twitters moderation policies. Presently Twitters stated priorities are facilitating safe, inclusive, and authentic conversations and minimizing the distribution and reach of harmful or misleading information, especially when its intent is to disrupt a civic process or cause offline harm. Efforts to roll back Twitters recent policies could lead to an uptick in disinformation, extremist content, harassment, and hate speech that the company has tried to crack down on for years.

Many Republicans meaning Trump followers are happy because they see Musk opening Twitter to absolute freedom of speech. Also celebrating the takeover of Twitter are white supremacist groups and conspiracists that see a way to return to the platform. Twitter may also be reopened to Trump who was banned as a threat to democracy after Jan. 6. Trump says he wont return to Twitter and, of course, his followers know he always tells the truth. (Putin would be happy with the further deterioration of our democracy with the spread of hate and division that an unfettered Twitter would offer.)

All of us defend freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. Categories of speech that the First Amendment does not protect include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. That is the way the courts interpret free speech.

Companies like Twitter, however, set their own rules for speech as to what is acceptable. In a few months Musk will make those decisions. Hopefully he allows opinion based on truth and facts and wont allow it to be a platform to further spread more hate and division. We have too much of that already.

Jack Strausser,

Elysburg

Go here to read the rest:

Twitter and free speech | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt argues the government's alleged collusion with Big Tech to violate the First Amendment 'needs to stop.'

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt slammed the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech, arguing his lawsuit will take on big government and Big Tech, "two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there."

ERIC SCHMITT: The government can't violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech, and the government can't outsource that also to the Big Tech partners. And that's what we're alleging in this lawsuit. And we're taking on two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there, big government and Big Tech

FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS BIDENS 'DISINFORMATION BOARD' IS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

First, they hold over these special protections that big tech has, principally section 230, which makes them immune from typical liability because they're not considered a publisher. So they hold that over, the left does, unless they censor more.

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses the Biden administration's alleged collusion with Big Tech during "Varney & Co." on May 9, 2022. (Fox News)

MUSK HOPES TO BUILD BRAND TRUST THROUGH FREE SPEECH, TRANSPARENCY WHICH 'BIG TECH NEEDS': FMR PARLER CEO

The second way they do it is the direct collusion that we see now and Jen Psaki in press conferences has told us with her own words that they're working directly with Facebook to flag, quote unquote, disinformation. And this has played itself out on a number of different fronts, whether it was the laptop from hell, election integrity issues, certainly during COVID with the origins of COVID and then with the efficacy of masks. So those are just a few examples. But in this lawsuit, we're essentially alleging that they're violating the First Amendment, and they're doing it with their big tech partners, and it needs to stop.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses his lawsuit against the Biden administration and top officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech.

Go here to see the original:

Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions - Fox Business

Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 7, formally titled the Individual Freedom measure, which bans educators from teaching certain topics related to race and prevents them from making students feel guilt or shame about their race because of historical events. In addition, by April more than 1,500 books primarily dealing with race and LGBTQ issues had been banned in U.S. school districts over the previous nine months. These measures have been described as a rightwing censorship effort unparalleled in its intensity.

Behind these efforts to cancel progressive views lies the mistaken belief that campuses have become laboratories for political indoctrination. As DeSantis stated after signing the repressive legislation: We believe in education, not indoctrination. Yet, the governor and the Republican Party fail to provide significant evidence of such indoctrination.

Many commentators, for example, have noted that Critical Race Theory, a primary right-wing target for cancellation, is actually not taught in public schools and rarely mentioned in colleges. During my 30 years of college teaching, I personally never witnessed professors pushing political indoctrination from the left or the right in the classroom. The Republican Partys highly political attack on public and higher education in America creates confusion and discord and does not solve any actual problems.

It is crucial to clarify the distinction between the campus as a public space as different from the classroom as a space for teaching. Princeton Professor Wendy Brown notes that the classroom is a space where were not talking left wing or right wing but offering the learning that students need to be able to come to their own positions and judgments. In other words, the classroom is centered on academic freedom and the development of critical thinking. The professor through his or her selection of course materials and lesson plans establish the agenda and the direction of the discussion. All views are welcome that contribute to the topic, but the direction and objectives of the course are set by the teacher.

In contrast, the campus is a public space where free speech should be the norm. Neither governors, legislators, administrators or professors have the right to impose their political biases on the campus community. At all the colleges I have taught, speakers from the left and right were consistently encouraged to participate in the civic life of the campus.

The Republican Party attacks on public and college education have blurred this important distinction between academic freedom in the classroom and free speech on campus. Perhaps an example from my experience can demonstrate the importance of academic freedom in the classroom and the dangers of the current repressive political measures adopted by the state of Florida.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

For many years at Eckerd College, I was honored to give the opening lecture on the liberal arts to all of our new first-year students. I consistently began this lecture with a reading of Langston Hughes brilliant poem Let America Be America Again. Through his poetry, Langston Hughes reminds us of the hope and dream of America. He cries out: O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned where equality is in the air we breathe. Let it be the dream it used to be.

While presenting pleasing patriotic images of America, Hughes makes us question these images. Hughes writes: There never has been equality for me, Nor freedom in this homeland of the free. I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slaverys scars. I am the red man driven from the land.

These lines remind us of the atrocities, such as the violence of slavery, that are also America. And yet, Hughes ends on an optimistic truly American note, the idea of hope. He hopes that America can be all the things it was expected to be. He will not give up on the idea of the American Dream. He wants America to be better. I told the students that Langston Hughes represented the best of the liberal scholar seeking the truth, writing clearly, persuasively and movingly on the major ethical issues of his time racism and discrimination. Langston Hughes helps students more deeply appreciate the struggle for true freedom in America.

Unfortunately, a few right-wing alumni and parents posted angry notes on social media denouncing this lecture. In their eyes, Langston Hughes was desecrating America and my lecture was left-wing political indoctrination, which made white students feel bad. They sought to cancel one of the most celebrated African-American writers from the curriculum and destroy academic freedom in the classroom. The new Florida law will further empower these individuals with political agendas to more effectively pursue their dangerous goals.

It is also unfortunate that these critics didnt take the time to actually examine the content of this course. In addition to Langston Hughes, the students were also engaged with the works of conservative thinkers, including theologian C.S. Lewis and philosopher Ayn Rand. We were trying to get students to think critically about all of these important thinkers and decide for themselves what to think. This can only happen in an atmosphere of engagement, active learning and open discussion of all points of view the opposite of political indoctrination. The Republican Partys outrage machine is more interested in canceling leftist views, stoking controversy and scoring political points than in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

William F. Felice, professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College, was the named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He can be reached via his website at williamfelice.com.

Read more from the original source:

We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Bill Maher delivered a scorching attack on the movement in the U.S. to censor what we say ... and gotta say, it may be his best commentary in a long time.

The "Real Time" host declared his position from the jump -- "Sorting out lies from truth is your job," adding it's ridiculous we treat everyone like "helpless dumb blondes ready to believe everything ... like Donald Trump!"

He makes the point ... people living today aren't special -- as he says, every age is the misinformation age. He harkens back to 1858, when the New York Times worried Americans couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph because it was "superficial and too fast for the truth."

Go back even further, Bill says, to 1487, when the Pope cautioned against the misuse of the printing press, saying it was the source of pernicious writing -- hmmm, sounds like fake news.

And, then there's radio ... in 1938, some listeners freaked out listening to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds," believing the Martians invaded New Jersey.

As Bill says, lies are everywhere ... like germs. He says you can't germproof the world, so develop a better bull*** meter.

And, then he makes a brilliant point ... "Sometimes misinformation is history's first draft" -- like the stories that circulated about COVID -- that 50% of those who are unvaccinated become hospitalized when it's less than 1%.

To drive home the point, he notes lots of folks believe in "an imaginary best friend in the sky who they can talk to to help them with their problems." Bill asks if there should be a warning label on that.

He's all for banning things like child porn, calls for insurrection, personal threats, etc, but people should be able to express their opinions even if they are repugnant. And, deciding whether something is true, half-true, a quarter true or false ... well that's our job, not the job of some publisher.

In sum, Bill says people have the right to be assholes and express ridiculous opinions. That's called free speech. That's called democracy -- it's as messy as it is precious.

Read more:

Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech - TMZ

Everyone knows that the Constitution protects free speech under the First Amendment.

But many may not realize that the First Amendment also protects commercial speech, such as advertisements. Even though the level of protection afforded to commercial speech is less than that given to other kinds of speech, especially political speech, businesses still have rights about what they say.

The First Amendment is also implicated when laws require labeling for commercial enterprises. For example, it is entirely legal for government to require fast food businesses to post the calorie count on the products they serve to the public. There are innumerable other examples of required disclosures, such as gas mileage and safety ratings for automobiles and whether a newly constructed home is subject to Mello-Roos taxes.

One infamous example of forced speech in California was imposed via Proposition 65, passed by voters in 1986. Commercial enterprises are required to post warning labels that their products or place of business may contain substances known to cause cancer. But Prop. 65 warnings are so ubiquitous in California that they have become meaningless. They are found on everything from bread to potato chips to chocolate chip cookies. In California, it appears, everything causes cancer.

But a recent court ruling over acrylamide, a naturally occurring substance that is formed in the process of baking goods, may have reined in the absurdity of Prop. 65 warnings just a bit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because scientific evidence couldnt come to a single conclusion over whether acrylamide in food and beverages can cause cancer in humans, the Prop. 65 warning signs for these products were likely misleading.

Turns out that government itself was violating truth in advertising laws.

But perhaps the greater benefit from the ruling has to do with inhibiting nuisance lawsuits that cost businesses millions of dollars. Thats because Prop. 65 has a private right of action provision allowing attorneys to sue businesses on behalf of the state. Prop. 65 essentially deputizes private trial lawyers to search for evidence of noncompliance.

The elimination of the misleading Prop. 65 warning for acrylamide might be a welcome step in reducing false or unproven claims that confuse consumers and cause adverse market effects. This not only would help businesses but also consumers who end up paying more for goods and services when businesses face shakedown lawsuits.

Lawsuit abuse is a huge problem for California and has resulted in the state having the worst rating in the nation from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation as a Judicial Hellhole. Prop. 65 lawsuits are a major reason for that dubious designation since they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per day, not to mention the costs for their own attorneys as well as those of the plaintiff. Given that there are approximately 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, the law presents a great temptation for unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

But Californians are waking up to the absurdity of Prop. 65.

A few years ago there was a push to put a Prop. 65 warning on coffee, again because of the presence of acrylamide. But the blowback from the public, as well as ridicule from late-night TV hosts, may have been a factor in a legal victory for sanity.

Were all for transparency. But Prop. 65 has long outlived its usefulness in providing consumers with reliable information. In fact, it has done just the opposite.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read the rest here:

Free speech and trivial lawsuits - The Whittier Daily News

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WOULD like to comment about things to do with the coming election.

I have been getting together with a small group and making banners to save koalas.

We put banners up last Saturday and they were gone shortly after dark.

One banner took three people many hours to paint, then hand stitch the loop for the bamboo rod top and bottom.

They have also taken many A4 posters off community notice boards and three Climate Action Now posters were removed.

Talking with a ranger he advised they had a call from the Greens as twenty roadside posters had been removed.

The loss is one thing but for us it is more disappointing that we have people in our community that do not want free speech and want to stop alternate views.

These are people who do not want action on climate change, do not want an ethical Government and a fair, decent and democratic Australia.

Regards,Colin HUTTON,Thora.

Read the rest here:

OPINION: Shutting Down Free Speech and Alternate Views - News Of The Area

Dr. Rita began writing just before George Floyd was killed; its publication date, 5/24/2022, falls on the eve of the second anniversary of his death

The book is designed to rewire our understanding of systemic racism and offer a practical approach to dismantling oppression

LOS ANGELES, May 11, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D. is a white woman with dual Italian/American citizenship who has studied systemic racism for 30 years, across four continents. Dr. Rita channels this wealth of experience and academics into her powerful new book, Digging Up the Seeds of white Supremacy (Collective Power Media), to be released May 24, 2022 the eve of the second anniversary of George Floyd's death.

A coach and healing professional, she interweaves memoir with a robust discourse on race and culture to bridge the gap between the construct of racism and the practice of self-healing. Dr. Rita's narrative is grounded in historical fact; she adds illustrations to visualize her message, personal practice notes, and "How To" guidelines to help readers embody antiracism.

Created via iPad, Dr. Rita's drawingswere conceptualized as graphic recordings to assist readers in digesting complex issues, further support visual learners, and pictorialize 500+ years of history across 10 systems. The tree image "The Whole System: Roots to Branches" functions as an infographic for the book's thematic flow: the System with a capital "S," which brings all the single systems with a lower-case "s" together.

Dr. Rita says that when we act from fear, we're upholding "the System." The progressive, liberal side of our culture continues to accumulate evidence of injustices but we have not found our way to diffuse them. Analysis has led to paralysis. How do we use such evidence not to confirm what we already know, but to transform the racist systems that drive society to change the world for the better, for everyone?

In the "Personal Practice" section of the chapter "Building Collective Power," she writes,

Later, she writes, "We must stop accepting that inequality, inequity, and injustice are normal and inevitable. We must engage in collective intellectual imagination about what it looks like to meet the needs of all."

At a time when misinformation is rampant, distrust of "the other" is epidemic, and rights are threatened daily, this book could not be timelier. Dr. Rita hopes that by following its lead, people can build collective power and co-create new seeds together "an exercise in replacing fear with love."

About the author:Dr. Rita Fierro Ph.D. is an intellectual artist, author, speaker, and radio host. For 30 years, she has studied systemic racism. Combining a coaching approach with evaluative thinking, she leads a consulting firm that assesses projects, social inequities, and provides processes that illuminate complexity for businesses, foundations, non-profits, NGOs, and the United Nations. Dr. Rita has a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, and a masters in Sociology from the University of Rome, Italy. She co-founded Home for Good Coalition so as to transform systemic racism by placing the voices of people who were traumatized by systems at the center of its work. Born in New York City, she lived in her family's ancestral town in Italy from age 10 until her college years. Dr. Rita comes from a long line of traditional healers, and she is both a Reiki and family constellation practitioner.

Dropbox: images, excerpts, illustrations, etc: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r01yt4fa62ki8es/AAACXujVS2Avf9F-aT0Npaaia?dl=0

Dr. Rita interviewed for Life Her podcasthttps://youtu.be/PK0JnCDncTA - Discussing:The Bridge Between Systematic Racism and Healing

Medium articles by Dr. Rita:https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/being-white-in-racial-healing-work-7057d4024ad7https://medium.com/@ritasfierro/white-people-aint-free-7ac633c875a9

Digging up the Seeds of white SupremacyISBN 978-0-5783786-3-3 (Hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-0-5 (Kindle)ISBN 979-8-9858796-2-9 (Audio book)ISBN 979-8-9858796-3-6 (Large-print hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-1-2 (paperback)https://www.amazon.com/Rita-Sinorita-Fierro/e/B09ZXT9FFWhttps://www.drritawrites.com/

Contact: Laura Grover: [emailprotected] or 310-994-1690

SOURCE Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D.

See the original post here:

At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems...

Updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on May 11, 2022

The lurid spectacle that is Johnny Depps $50 million defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard hasnt just tarnished his star and hers with allegations that he beat her and violated her with a bottle or that she severed part of his finger and emptied her bowels in the marital bed. (Both deny wrongdoing, and Heard has countersued for $100 million.) Amid this grotesquerie, it might be possible to overlook the bizarre involvement of the ACLU. But the civil-rights organizations cringeworthy role deserves closer scrutiny because of its centrality to the case, and because it exemplifies the degree to which the ACLU has lost its way in recent years.

The heart of Depps claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as a public figure representing domestic abusea thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadnt pitched the idea to the Postthe ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organizations general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an ambassador on womens rights with a focus on gender-based violence. The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heards ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)

The ACLUs bestowal of an ambassadorship and scribe-for-hire services upon a scandal-plagued actor willing to pay seven figures to transform herself into a victims advocate and advance her acting careerHeard pushed for a publication date that coincided with the release of her film Aquamanis part of the groups continuing decline. Once a bastion of free speech and high-minded ideals, the ACLU has become in many respects a caricature of its former self.

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU declines to defend civil rights

Over the organizations 100-year history, the ACLUs unique value has been its apolitical willingness to stand up for all speech, regardless of the speakers identity, and to stand up for those accused, no matter what the accusation. This content-neutral, take-all-comers stance is based on the premise that the silencing of one side will inevitably lead to a collective hush irreconcilable with the free marketplace of ideas and the commitment to due process that are the hallmarks of our democracy. Doing this often-unpopular work turns on the belief that having an informed and independent-minded citizenry requires the ability to countenance, analyze, and, yes, at times defend opposing points of view.

In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLUs successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about limited resources and the potential effect on marginalized groups, the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose values are contrary to our values.

By our values, the ACLU was referring to the progressive causes it has championed with fervor and great fundraising success since the election of Donald Trump: immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice. Should its lawyers decide to take on a client espousing opposing views, the organization instructed them to engage in a public campaign denouncing those views in press statements, op-eds, social media, and other available fora, and participating in counter-protests. How, exactly, loudly disavowing their clients is consistent with lawyers duty to zealously represent them was not explained. Speaking as a criminal-defense lawyer, I dont think it can be.

I dont look to the ACLU to affirm my beliefs or those of my allies. On the contrary, I look to the ACLU to defend everyone, including my ideological enemies. To do that work, it cannot be beholden to any political party or ideology. Yet in 2018, the ACLU spent $800,000 on a campaign ad for Stacey Abrams during her run for governor in Georgia and $1 million in an attack-ad campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence, but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU should keep representing deplorables

The ACLU now seems largely unable or unwilling to uphold its core values. To be fair, the organization still goes to bat for some causes that are associated with conservatives and free-speech absolutists, including the right to bear arms, of anti-Semites to protest, and of parochial schools to discriminate in hiring based on religion. And yet since Trumps election, according to The New York Times, the organizations annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubledbut only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its servicesand filled its coffersas it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLUs hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to reenroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling.

This article has been updated to clarify the details of Terence Dougherty's testimony.

More:

Helping Amber Heard Was Just the Start of the ACLU's Problems - The Atlantic

Were living, learning and teaching in a time when our relationship with discourse and debate is increasingly fraught. Everywhere, including in higher education, there is increased hesitancy and, sometimes, a complete inability to engage with perspectives, opinions or ideas different from our own. At the same time, a flood of disinformation causes widespread confusion and distrust. Together, these challenges undermine our future. This isnt only higher educations problem, but it is incumbent on us to help solve it, as it threatens our democracy, communities and well-being.

Unfettered, evidence-based intellectual inquiry is at the very heart of what we do as a university. Our highest goals are to prepare our students to thrive and to expand humanitys knowledge of itself and our universe. And that universe is not getting any simpler. We fail our students if we dont help them hone the skills to successfully encounter complexity, difference and thorny, complicated problems.

Free speech, civil discourse, civil education, diversity of ideas, pluralism, engaged listeninga wealth of terminology describes these issues, but terminology should not be our focus. What is most urgent is that we actively engage in respectful discussion and learning with complex, different and diverse ideas. At the University of Denver, we are taking on this work by being explicit about what we hope to achieve.

Most important, we want everyone in our community to feel free to express themselvesand to uphold that same freedom for others. Discussions, no matter how divided or tense, must remain respectful, evidence-based and guided by the shared goal of seeking greater understanding. In our classrooms and everywhere on campus, we seek to model the myriad skills needed for civil discourse: respect, empathy, inclusivity, kindness, and an openness to learn and engage across difference. And we provide opportunities for our students to sharpen those skills. Our biggest challenge, but one to which we are fervently committed, is to provide balance and symmetry, considering voices from all walks of life, including those with very different experiences, because doing so adds to the richness of our community and gives our students the deepest education possible.

As we work to provide and affirm these values, we avoid pitfalls that undermine or distort our mission. By engaging in diverse ideas and perspectives, the University as an institution does not elevate or favor a particular way of thinking or ideology. We welcome respectful protests and disagreements. Indeed, they are important forms of expression. As the community encourages engagement with difference, the goal is not agreement or consensus, but learning and understanding. Disagreement is important and perhaps even essential.

This work is rife with nuance, but that is why it is vital that we commit to it wholly. Our students need these skills if they are going to be the leaders, thinkers, doers and creators that society needs. Difference is inevitable. Its also important. Education itself is based on encountering new information, new ideas and being powerfully changed by it.

We have work to do, but no one is better able to do it than we are.

See the original post:

It's time to recommit to civil discourse and free speech - University of Denver Magazine

As an academic dean of library services for the past 40 years, I think I have a good eye for what constitutes censorship. Cancel culture, a new term for an old and deadly form of silencing your enemies has recently shown its ugly face and has unmistakably assumed the role of free speech bullies. Not since the McCarthy Era have we seen such proscription of speech, and it appears to be unrelenting. The eagerness with which these new speech bullies seek to prohibit ideas is now ubiquitous, and the desire to cancel scores of individuals from Washington State to, well, the heart of the reddest of Red States, Rock Hill, South Carolina, where I live, is raging.

Cancel culture isnt just tendentious; its also malicious. Dr. Seusss books now struggle to remain in the reading canon for children. Dozens of our great writers, including Twain, Shakespeare, Carlyle, and medieval culture and literature, have been canceled. More authors are on the cancel culture chopping block. I find this form of censorship appalling. We all should.

Sadly, this isnt just a group of louche-minded malcontents, either. With no fanfare, Amazon has decided to withdraw from selling any books it deems hate speech, the first such book being one that dares to question sex reassignment among minors. Cancel culture is so widespread it has its talons even in Congress.

What disturbs most, however, is these new free speech bullies are everywhere. Sure, you might expect to see them and their work in places like Los Angeles, California, Portland, Oregon, or Antifa strongholds like Seattle, Washington. But in the heart of conservative politics in South Carolina?

Sadly, yes. Forty-five days from my retirement, I became a victim of cancel culture for a two-part article I wrote for a professional library magazine in March 2020. My crimes were threefold: daring to call our then plague the Wuhan Virus, a phrase nearly every media in the country had used or was still using; repeating an Obama Administration wordplay (the Kung-Flu), and pointing out East-West culture differences. The second part never saw the light of day.

A maelstrom of maledictions followed, first from the magazine I had written for, for the last 15 years (ironically called Against the Grain). Not only had the magazine given me my own column, but it had in this instance showcased part one on its front cover as one to read. After less than a dozen vocal subscribers complained it to be racist, the magazine unilaterally pulled the piece and apologized for its appearance. It didnt end there. The American Library Association and the Asian Pacific Library Association also chimed in. Blood was in the water, and they wanted their part of the prized flesh.

Next, my university employer of 21 years piled on. My articles were censored from our faculty digital archive, and I was paraded before my peers as racist and xenophobic in an email from my provost. She later recommended reading materials for my reeducation. All this took place at Winthrop University, a state institution of about 5,500 students in the Palmetto State, a state that elected Republicans in every contested seat in the 2020 elections.

Cancel culture usually ends badly for the victim, including loss of reputation, standing, even employment. While I have lost some reputation in my professional circles, my story ended well. I was able, thanks to some prominent friends (among them my congressman and state senator), my cancel culture moment ended with a written apology from the provost for her overreach sent campus-wide, another apology from the Interim president, and reinstatement of my articles to our digital commons.

At the very least, the First Amendment allows ideas to fight it out in the marketplace of ideas. Some ideas will appeal, others will not, but none are to be silenced from the get-go by someone who deems them unworthy by his or her private definition of the term. The First Amendment isnt a weapon, or it isnt supposed to be, especially by an institution of higher learning.

If all of this sounds hyperbolic to you, overblown in a kind of hysterical way, just remember how these things work. If cancel culture can erase my right to free speech in one of the countrys reddest states, it can also come for yours. If men and women of good spirit do nothing, you can count on cancel culture coming for your free speech as well.

I hope for all our sakes; we survive this onslaught.

Mark Y. Herring is professor emeritus, dean of library services from Winthrop University. Herring spent 42 years as dean or director in academic libraries in Tennessee, Oklahoma and South Carolina. He was most recently appointed by Gov. Henry McMaster to the South Carolina State Library Board. He resides with his wife, Carol, in Rock Hill. Republished from the Carolina Journal.

Read the original post:

OPINION: The new free speech bullies - The Richmond Observer

Judge Davis acknowledged that the board had also imposed some punishments more concrete than a reprimand, like making Mr. Wilson ineligible for reimbursement for college-related travel. Those additional penalties, the judge wrote, did not violate his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Wilsons lawyers told the justices that the power to censure must have limits. Elected bodies can censure their members for what they say during the lawmaking process, they wrote, and for conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. But outside the official realm, they wrote, the First Amendment forbids a government bodys official punishment of a speaker for merely expressing disagreement with a political majority.

Those may appear to be fine distinctions. Mr. Wilsons brief in the case, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, gave examples to illustrate how they would work outside the legislative process.

A censure would be permissible for illegal marijuana use, for example, but not for statements supporting the legalization of marijuana use, the brief said. Likewise, a censure would be permissible for slander, but not for statements that merely criticize.

The full Fifth Circuit deadlocked on whether to rehear the case, by an 8-to-8 vote. Dissenting from the decision to deny further review, Judge Edith H. Jones said the panels First Amendment analysis was backward. The boards censure was itself speech worthy of protection, she wrote, particularly in a polarized era.

Given the increasing discord in society and governmental bodies, the attempts of each side in these disputes to get a leg up on the other, and the ready availability of weapons of mass communication with which each side can tar the other, the panels decision is the harbinger of future lawsuits, Judge Jones wrote. It weaponizes any gadfly in a legislative body.

Political infighting of this sort, she wrote, should not be dignified with a false veneer of constitutional protection and has no place in the federal courts.

Read the rest here:

Are Censures of Politicians a Form of Free Speech or a Threat to It? - The New York Times

The United States has officially ended the longest war in its history with the final troops clearing out of Afghanistan. President Biden addressed the nation to explain his decision to end the war and posed the following question to his critics: to those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan, I ask, What is the vital national interest? Even though polling data has shown for a long time that its time for America to get out of the Middle East, members of the media havent seemed so pleased with Bidens decision. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki held a press conference yesterday and one reporter asked her, does the president envision any situation in which he might deploy a large amount of US troops abroad under his presidency? The fact that the default solution to conflict for this reporter is extensive military presence goes to show there needs to be a paradigm shift when it comes to US foreign policy. Another reporter told Psaki that Biden seemed angry in his speech to the American public, asking whos he mad at? This pushback from the media was predictable, as conflicts tend to drive ratings. Now, were witnessing the media try to get the last play it can out of the twenty-year war in Afghanistan before having to move on to the next topic.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Afghanistan David Pakman Jen Psaki Joe Biden Media National Security Taliban The David Pakman Show United States War

Here is the original post:

War-Thirsty Media Demanding Another War - Free Speech TV

The longest war in United States history has finally ended after nearly twenty years. The Associated Press has reported that the final US troops have left Afghanistan and now President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have reiterated this. Much of the coverage has been negative in the past few weeks given the Talibans speedy takeover and the attack outside the Kabul airport on Thursday that took upwards of 200 lives. However, exiting Afghanistan was something that had to be done and Joe Biden followed through on what George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump were unable to. The alternative was remaining in the country for five, ten, twenty or even a hundred years as some have suggested and that just wasnt going to be a tenable solution. Biden is set to address the nation today and he will mention there will be continued efforts to get American citizens and Afghan allies out of the country if they want to leave. In the short term, many will see the tumultuous exit of US personnel as a failure, but zooming out, history is likely to view Bidens decision kindly.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Afghanistan Antony Blinken Associated Press David Pakman Joe Biden The David Pakman Show United States War

See the original post here:

Joe Biden Has Officially Ended a 20-Year War - Free Speech TV

In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a womans reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech.

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their optionsnow have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.

We will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

SB8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, encourages private persons to file lawsuits against anyone who knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion. It doesnt matter whether that person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the law, that is, the laws new and broadly expansive definition of illegal abortion. And you can be liable even if you simply intend to help, regardless, apparently, of whether an illegal abortion actually resulted from your assistance.

And although you may defend a lawsuit if you believed the doctor performing the abortion complied with the law, it is really hard to do so. You must prove that you conducted a reasonable investigation, and as a result reasonably believed that the doctor was following the law. Thats a lot to do before you simply post something to the internet, and of course you will probably have to hire a lawyer to help you do it.

SB8 is a bounty law: it doesnt just allow these lawsuits, it provides a significant financial incentive to file them. It guarantees that a person who files and wins such a lawsuit will receive at least $10,000 for each abortion that the speech aided or abetted, plus their costs and attorneys fees. At the same time, SB8 may often shield these bounty hunters from having to pay the defendants legal costs should they lose. This removes a key financial disincentive they might have had against bringing meritless lawsuits.

Moreover, lawsuits may be filed up to six years after the purported aiding and abetting occurred. And the law allows for retroactive liability: you can be liable even if your aiding and abetting conduct was legal when you did it, if a later court decision changes the rules. Together this creates a ticking time bomb for anyone who dares to say anything that educates the public about, or even discusses, abortion online.

Given this legal structure, and the laws vast application, there is no doubt that we will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

And unfortunately, its not clear when speech encouraging someone to or instructing them how to commit a crime rises to the level of aiding and abetting unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the leading case on the issue, it is a fact-intensive analysis, which means that defending the case on First amendment grounds may be arduous and expensive.

The result of all of this is the classic chilling effect: many would-be speakers will choose not to speak at all for fear of having to defend even the meritless lawsuits that SB8 encourages. And many speakers will choose to take down their speech if merely threatened with a lawsuit, rather than risk the laws penalties if they lose or take on the burdens of a fact-intensive case even if they were likely to win it.

The law does include an empty clause providing that it may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While that sounds nice, it offers no real protectionyou can already raise the First Amendment in any case, and you dont need the Texas legislature to give you permission. Rather, that clause is included to try to insulate the law from a facial First Amendment challengea challenge to the mere existence of the law rather than its use against a specific person. In other words, the drafters are hoping to ensure that, even if the law is unconstitutionalwhich it iseach individual plaintiff will have to raise the First Amendment issues on their own, and bear the exorbitant costsboth financial and otherwiseof having to defend the lawsuit in the first place.

One existing free speech bulwark47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230)will provide some protection here, at least for the online intermediaries upon which many speakers depend. Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries from state law liability arising from the speech of their users, so it provides a way for online platforms and other services to get early dismissals of lawsuits against them based on their hosting of user speech. So although a user will still have to fully defend a lawsuit arising, for example, from posting clinic hours online, the platform they used to share that information will not. That is important, because without that protection, many platforms would preemptively take down abortion-related speech for fear of having to defend these lawsuits themselves. As a result, even a strong-willed abortion advocate willing to risk the burdens of litigation in order to defend their right to speak will find their speech limited if weak-kneed platforms refuse to publish it. This is exactly the way Section 230 is designed to work: to reduce the likelihood that platforms will censor in order to protect themselves from legal liability, and to enable speakers to make their own decisions about what to say and what risks to bear with their speech.

But a powerful and dangerous chilling effect remains for users. Texass anti-abortion law is an attack on many fundamental rights, including the First Amendment rights to advocate for abortion rights, to provide basic educational information, and to counsel those considering reproductive decisions. We will keep a close eye on the lawsuits the law spurs and the chilling effects that accompany them. If you experience such censorship, please contact info@eff.org.

Read more from the original source:

New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy and Other Speech - EFF

Twitter recently came under severe pressure for allowing the Taliban to keep their account on its platform. By way of contrast, the company decided to suspend Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene for repeatedly tweeting that COVID vaccines are ineffective. In the eyes of many Americans, Twitter should have done the exact opposite. For my part, I cannot help but think that Twitter is within its right to behave as it did.

Since 2019, I have been teaching social media ethics to the aspiring computer scientists of Silicon Valley. When my students ask me about the extent of their right to free speech on social media, my answer is quite radical: they do not have a right to freedom of expression on such platforms. This is because Twitter is not a town square, and we should stop treating it like one.

Traditionally, the language of free speech is used to protect citizens from censorship when government actors abuse their power and stifle dissent. In recent years, however, social media critics have increasingly used this language to describe a very different relationship: that which exists between powerful private actors and users who generate content on their platforms.

From a legal point of view, the distinction between public and private matters. Citizens right to free speech in public spaces does not immediately translate into a right to say what they please in privately-owned spaces. By way of example, members of the public do not have a right to publish what they want in the newspaper of their choice. That the Wall Street Journal will not publish my left-wing op-eds might irk me, but this does not give me a right to demand it does so. If we conceive of social media platforms as publishers, they, therefore, have a right to control what content circulates on their platform. Indeed, the comparison between publishers and social media platforms is not far-fetched: just like editors of newspapers decide what goes on the front page, Twitters algorithms determine what users see first in their feed when they log into their account.

Of course, we might reject the publisher analogy and envision social media platforms as virtual spaces which are part of the new online public sphere. This does not make them town squares, neither literally nor metaphorically. Again, such spaces are privately owned, which means that they are more akin to public accommodations, that is, private facilities which are used by the public at large such as restaurants and clubs.

Public accommodations are subject to anti-discrimination law. For instance, a restaurant owner cannot refuse service to customers on the grounds that they are differently-abled or practice a particular religion. Yet, anti-discrimination legislation targeted at public accommodations does not extend to viewpoint discrimination. For instance, it would be quite strange for a white supremacist to argue that she is the victim of discrimination because her universitys Anti-Racist League denies her membership on the grounds of her political views. If Twitter is a public accommodation, then it might similarly have a right to exclude viewpoints that run contrary to its executives values.

In my view, abusing the language of free speech prevents us from having a fruitful democratic debate on the right to exclude viewpoints from private spaces. Accepting to engage in such debate does not mean that we have to grant tech companies unlimited powers. If we the people dislike the fact that social media platforms currently regulate content as they please, we can change anti-discrimination law and collectively decide which perspectives they should be obligated to include. From a philosophical point of view, however, shouting free speech on a crowded social media platform does not accomplish anything; it simply blurs the lines between the public and the private.

Rejecting the town square model of Twitter is not merely a matter of philosophical clarity, but also of democratic power. In fact, my suggestion is to conceive of social media firms as private spaces that can be regulated by the government. Yet, people who shout free speech are under the mistaken impression that Twitter is the government. This comes at a great cost. If Twitter is our tyrant, then the best we can do is beg it to behave differently.

Twitter is no tyrant, and we are not supplicants. We do have elected representatives whose responsibility it is to protect citizens fundamental rights as opposed to the interest of shareholders. In the end, the power to regulate big tech belongs to the democratically accountable, not to big tech itself. If they are to succeed, our grievances should be directed at them.

About the author

tienne Brown is an assistant professor of philosophy at San Jos State University, holds a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, and is a Public Voices Fellow at TheOp-Ed Project. He teaches the philosophy of law and the ethics of technology to the aspiring computer scientists of Silicon Valley.

Read more here:

[COMMENTARY] Twitter Is Not a Town Square; We Should Stop Treating It Like One - HillReporter.com

Mitigating the impact of online extremism has proven a complicated task for companies that want to protect free expression.

Social media companies have struggled to moderate hate speech and adapt to changes in how white supremacists spread their views on digital platforms. Libby Hemphill, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Information, believes machine learning technology might provide an answer.

We know that white supremacists and other types of extremists use social media to talk to each other, to recruit, to try to get their message to go mainstream, Hemphill said. The challenge has been that the platforms havent really stepped up to fight hate on their platforms.

Through a partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, Hemphill set out to teach algorithms to distinguish white supremacist and extremist speech from the typical conversations people are having on social media. Turns out, extremist groups are pretty good at hiding in plain sight but algorithms can become even better at finding them.

We cant do content moderation without some machine assistance, Hemphill said. Theres just too much content.

Hemphill started by collecting a sample of 275,000 blog posts from Stormfront, a white nationalist website. The data was fed to algorithms used to study the sentence structure of posts, detect specific phrases and flag recurring topics.

The goal was to train a machine to identify toxic language using the Stormfront conversations as a model. Algorithms compared the Stormfront data to 755,000 Twitter posts from users affiliated with the alt-right movement and another set of 510,000 Reddit posts collected from general users.

The results are still being compiled. Hemphill is hoping to unveil a public tool later this fall.

Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have been accused of stifling free speech by removing users who violate community guidelines prohibiting hate speech. Offending posts are identified by algorithms trained to detect hate speech and through reports from users.

However, advocacy organisations arent satisfied with enforcement standards.

The Center to Counter Digital Hate found the top five social media companies took no action on 84% of anti-semitic posts reported to them. CCDH, a non-profit group in the United States and the United Kingdom, flagged 714 posts through the platforms user reporting tools. The anti-semitic posts were viewed up to seven million times.

Platforms must aggressively remedy their moderation systems which have been proven to be insufficient, CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed wrote in a study announcing the groups findings.

Steps to ban white nationalist content also inspired the rise of new platforms with more relaxed content standards. Gab, MeWe and Parler purport to champion free speech but have been criticised as havens for extremists.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba promotes his website as the only place you can criticise groups like the American Jewish Congress and the ADL in emails to Gabs user base.

Hemphill said theres significant conflict revolving around what constitutes hate speech and what social platforms should do about it. She also acknowledged concerns that machines can make mistakes and unfairly punish users.

The challenge is that we as a community dont share a set of values, Hemphill said. We disagree about what is hateful and what ought to be permissible. One of the things that I would like to see come out of work like this is more explicit discussions about what our values are and what is okay with us and what isnt. Then we can worry about what we ought to teach machines.

Finding the line can be tricky. Accurately identifying nuanced racial stereotypes and microaggressions is harder than finding slurs, Hemphill said. Theres also a large number of posts containing meme images and videos that are harder to accurately catalogue.

Stormfront was used as a baseline in Hemphills research because the group openly identifies as a forum for white nationalists. Alt-right Twitter users were selected from a study commissioned by the Centre for American Progress.

Beyond the use of racial slurs and other kinds of toxic language, Hemphill said subtle differences were found between white nationalists and the average internet user. For example, white nationalists swear less often, possibly a tactic to appear more palatable to mainstream audiences.

They are sort of politely hateful, Hemphill said. If youve spent any time on the Internet at all, you know that its a pretty profane place, but white supremacists are not profane. They are marked by what they dont do as well.

Hate speech makes up a relatively small amount of content on the Internet, Hemphill said, though it makes a large impact on whoever sees it. She plans to collect more data from smaller websites like Gab, 4chan and Parler to continue teaching algorithms to identify hate speech.

Ultimately, the goal is to encourage social media companies to create inclusive spaces for discussion.

Its OK to be freaked out about big tech, and its OK to be freaked out about academic researchers and what we may be doing, Hemphill said. I think the more this conversation happens in the open and the more data is shared among folks who are trying to understand how these decisions get made, the better, more just decisions about what is permissible will come from that openness. mlive.com/Tribune News Service

Read the original:

Stopping online hate speech is hard. New research teaches machines to find white nationalist content - The Star Online

Republicans on campus shouldnt be stereotyped or afraid to speak up.

Ryan Adams for the Daily Iowan

Anti-mask protesters stand in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol building before the opening of the 2021 legislative session on Monday, Jan. 11, 2021. Despite Gov. Kim Reynolds emergency proclamation mandating masks worn when social distancing indoors is not possible, house republicans made the announcement last week that masks would not be required during the session.

My former professor said any kid who identifies as gay or lesbian and grows up in a conservative household will be oppressed.

This accusation makes it seem like you cannot be queer and conservative, and all conservatives are homophobic. However, Peter Thiel, a conservative who identifies as gay, spoke at the Republican National Convention after the 2016 election. As someone who cant have biological kids, Ill be happy with either a queer or straight kid. Its not right to automatically label a conservative transphobic or homophobic without asking about their views first.

Despite people assuming conservatives are transphobic or homophobic, many of us support LGBTQ rights. For example, a survey found 61 percent of Republicans support anti-discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations for gay and transgender people. According to a 2020 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, over half of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Conservatives need to add to diversity of opinion on campus by speaking out, but people also need to stop stereotyping us.

Micah Broekemeier, a UI junior majoring in history who is conservative, said conservatives need to speak out more. He said he wore MAGA hats and Trump shirts on campus and did not receive any hate on-campus for doing so.

During the election cycle, whatever candidate I supported, I wore it on my sleeve, Broekemeier said.

While Im glad Broekemeier has never felt any hate toward him because he is a conservative, there have been incidents of conservative beliefs being silenced at other universities. At the University of Northern Iowa, their student government denied a Student for Life group a chance to register as a student organization based on the claim they included hateful rhetoric.

UNI president Mark Nook overruled the senators decision. However, a conservative group of students should not have to go through all this trouble to have their First Amendment rights granted.

At my first homecoming at the University of Iowa in 2018, the UI College Republicans (UICRs) talked about how they were going to get booed and spit on while marching in the parade. On May 4, the UICRs drew chalk drawings, and students poured water on them.

Later on, the University of Iowa released a statement and updated chalk policy to reflect a change in the state Board of Regents policy manual to protect free speech on campus.

I understand conservatives not speaking up due to fear of mistreatment. The hate stems from people making assumptions about conservative without hearing us out. Instead, we should be asked about our beliefs rather than just people making assumptions.

Despite many generalizations such as Republicans being called ableists, Im pro-life because I think its heartbreaking so many others with disabilities are denied a chance at life because of abortion.

While conservatives may be the minority political party on campus, we shouldnt be stereotyped without asking our beliefs first. Conservatives on campus shouldnt be afraid to speak about their beliefs because theyre worried people will make assumptions about us such as being homophobic.

Liberals and conservatives need to contribute to diversity of speech. Liberals need to become more open-minded and accepting of conservatives, and Republicans on campus need to start speaking up.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Read more:

Opinion | It's up to all of us to increase political freedom of speech on campus - UI The Daily Iowan