"Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is."

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. It allows each person to express their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal. What doesnt it do? Protect us from having another person call our ideas garbage! (If a group, corporation or government did so, that might be considered censorship another story).

So, loosely in response in to Kelly Kerrs Aug. 12 letter, No one deserves to be personally attacked for writing an opinion, I agree with the statement of avoiding personal attacks when writing or responding to a letter. However, in regards to mask-wearing, a lot of people who may be fine, upstanding citizens otherwise have very dumb opinions!

Dumb opinions are open to being called out at any time, but are especially vulnerable when it comes to this respiratory pandemic. Almost everyone can wear a mask to no ill effect. Oxygen levels dont deplete. You dont re-inhale carbon dioxide. Its not an affront to human rights.

Compare two other well-known failsafes in our society: vaccines and seatbelts. There is an extremely small number of people who really, really, really cannot have a vaccine. So the rest of us vaccinate to help give that person protection they wouldnt otherwise have. There is, however an increasing number of people who refuse to vaccinate, even though they can do so safely. This behaviour should be pointed out for the reckless one that it is! Compare it to seatbelts. Would any of us accept the argument: I dont need to wear a seatbelt ... I know better. My Body, My Choice!? Well, it sounds silly doesnt it? If a person crashes their car, flies out of the seat, and that car continues on to run someone else over, it was only their body now, was it?

To compare to vaccination, there is an infinitesimally small number of people who shouldnt be forced to wear a mask, even though it probably wouldnt hurt. However, there is, again, that increasing number of people who are sheep to use their own words against them and believe any content they read online, and think they shouldnt wear a mask. Who are the sheep? The ones who read, and parrot word for word, alternative slop from crummy, easily-debunked websites, or the ones who understand and respect science?

Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is. May freedom of speech persist!

Damon Davies, St. Albert

Read the original:

LETTER: Free speech means freedom to call out bad opinions - St. Albert Today

From left: Rouse; Starr; Kennedy 77

From left: courtesy Princeton University; courtesy Paul Starr; Martha Stewart

Amid all the summer news about Princeton and there was a lot of it, as you will read here one story has special relevance for PAW. The killing of George Floyd renewed earlier calls to rename the school and residential college named for Woodrow Wilson 1879 and this time, the calls succeeded. The campus discussion continued with letters and petitions requesting among other things anti-racism programming, curricular changes, and oversight of racist behaviors and research, opening a debate on how the University can promote both racial justice and academic freedom.

When it comes to campus research and speech, whats permissible, and how do we draw the line? PAW brought together three professors Princetons Carolyn Rouse (anthropology) and Paul Starr (sociology) and Harvard Law Schools Randall Kennedy 77 for a Zoom conversation in July to discuss the roles of the University in advocating for social justice and in fostering free inquiry. You can read an account of the candid conversation on page 30.

PAW intended to be a forum for alumni to communicate with the University and with each other traditionally has taken an expansive view of speech, its editors believing that readers respond to ideas they find insulting or offensive with ... better ideas. Longtime readers of PAWs letters section surely have gasped at some of the missives published in our pages over the years. Today, for example, letters opposing coeducation in the 1960s seem comical but in their time, they werent funny. These days its often letters relating to race that give us pause.

The Universitys fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed, says a statement adopted by the faculty in 2015. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. President Eisgruber 83 wrote in The Daily Princetonian in July that many people mistakenly treat free speech and inclusivity as competing values, but universities must remain devoted to both.

What this means in real life is difficult to define. Over the summer, PAW board members had a spirited discussion about our letters to the editor. In general, we wont print letters that we deem to be threatening, uncivil, or personal attacks, or letters that we know to be factually incorrect. Some readers think we dont apply those standards enough; others believe we use them to exclude unpopular views. In light of the national focus on racial justice, should we have new standards on whats appropriate for publication? At the end of the board discussion, we agreed that while some might want us to be more restrictive in our selection of letters, it would be hard, or impossible, to come up with rules that clarify exactly whats over the line.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on PAW letters and including them in a robust (and civil) collection in our pages and online.

This year, PAW will publish 11 issues: monthly from September through July. Meanwhile, we are boosting our coverage atpaw.princeton.edu,so you can read Princeton news when its current. (Subscribe to email updates atpaw.princeton.edu/email.) Our commitment to print remains strong. But as I wrote in January, many alumni classes have found it difficult to fund their share of PAWs budget, and the pandemic has added to PAWs financial pressures. We believe that the new schedule will allow us to maintain and even strengthen the quality of our print magazine.

Read the rest here:

From the Editor: The Lines Around Free Speech - Princeton Alumni Weekly

Excessive social media regulation can negatively impact the freedom of speech, according to Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark and a member of Facebooks Oversight Board.

According to a CNBC report, Thorning-Schmidt warned against the infringement of free speech owing to aggressive social media regulation. She cited an example of an internet shutdown that had happened in Belarus last month after the countrys election results.

If regulation gets too heavy, it actually will impact freedom of speech very heavily, she told CNBC. I believe in regulation, I believe that politics has to play a role.

Thorning-Schmidt is one of four co-chairs of the independent regulatory body set up by Facebook.

Facebook had announced the setting up of its Oversight Board with 20 members from across the globe, back in May. The board is yet to become operational. In an emailed statement the board said that it was working hard to become operational and expects to begin to hear cases in the coming months.

The Oversight Board, which is comprised of independent expert members from around the world, is empowered to make binding and independent decisions on many of the most challenging content issues on Facebook and Instagram, it said.

Continue reading here:

Excessive regulation can impact free speech, warns Facebooks Oversight Board member - BusinessLine

New Delhi: The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdos decision to republish the controversial cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad has been criticised for being offensive and supported as a freedom of expression issue in equal measure. Among those it has clearly enthused are Hindu right groups in India, not particularly known for being great votaries of free speech. But the magazines somewhat radical stance has provided these groups yet another opportunity to further their hate campaign against the Muslim community. Additionally, it is another chance to take a dig at Indian secularism.

The republishing of the cartoons have yet again sparked off global discussions on free speech and blasphemy. Charlie Hebdo, known for its provocative and irreverent content, decided to republish the controversial cartoons on Tuesday, a day ahead of the first trial for the 2015 terrorist attacks against the magazine which had come in the wake of the original publication.

Five years ago, on January 7, 2015, Said and Cherif Kouachi, French nationals of Algerian origin stormed its Paris offices with Kalashnikov assault rifles, grenades and pistols, killed 12 people and injured at least 11. Among those killed were many celebrated cartoonists of France, including the then-editor Stphane Charbonnier, the satirical caricaturist widely known as Charb. Later, the Yemen-based Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula, also known as Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility for the attacks. The cartoon even then had sparked off an intense debate about the publication.

The trial, which will continue for the next few months at a Paris court, will hear the case of 14 people who have been accused of providing logistical support to the Kouachi brothers who carried out the attacks but were later killed in a police encounter in the outskirts of French capital city.

Also Read: Five Years on From the Charlie Hebdo Attack, Je Suis Charlie Rings Hollow

The controversial cartoons have divided the world multiple times

While the magazine itself said that its decision to republish the provocative cartoons was an act of defiance, many political commentators also believe its action may reignite old wounds and spark yet another political row.

While republishing the cartoons, Laurent Riss Sourisseau, the publishing director who was also injured in the 2015 attack, wrote, We will never give up. The hatred that struck us is still there and, since 2015, it has taken the time to mutate, to change its appearance, to go unnoticed and to quietly continue its ruthless crusade.

He further said that if the magazine does not republish the cartoons, it would only be because of political or journalistic cowardice.

However, many commentators feel that the cartoons, 12 of which were originally published in 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005, and later reprinted by Charlie Hebdo the following year, were poor in taste. They showed Prophet Mohammad as an accomplice in terrorism. Even in 2005, the cartoons had set off large-scale protests in many Muslim-majority countries. While Jyllands-Posten claimed that it had published the cartoons to take a dig on the culture of fear and self-censorship within the Danish media, political commentators felt that the cartoons perpetuate a particular militant stereotype about Muslims, especially when many innocent Muslims were bearing the brunt of global Islamophobia.

The matter only blew out of proportion when the Danish newspaper boastfully contended that the cartoons depicted the superiority of western culture over other barbaric societies.

Although protests and condemnations by many groups forced Jyllands-Posten to apologise later (the editor-in-chief of the Danish magazine said the cartoons had caused serious misunderstandings), every time the cartoons were re-published from 2005 to 2015, it sparked off global debates that invariably pitched advocates of free speech against their peers who were also equally critical of Islamophobia and blasphemous depiction of Islamic symbols in media.

The massacre in the offices of Charlie Hebdo five years ago further aggravated these fault lines, especially against the backdrop of majoritarian political forces continuously asserting themselves in many countries.

Police secure an entrance at the courthouse for the opening of the trial of the January 2015 Paris attacks against Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly, a policewoman in Montrouge and the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket, in Paris, France, Steptember 2, 2020. The trial will take place from September 2 to November 10. Photo: Reuters/Christian Hartmann

The Hindu rights push

The Hindu right, which has consolidated itself on anti-Muslim propaganda in India, has latched on to the republishing as a cause to further their own agenda. While right-wing commentators on social media supported Charlie Hebdo wholeheartedly, pro-Hindutva websites also made it a point to highlight the development as a matter of freedom of expression. The RSSs mouthpiece Organiser which hardly reports on international issues carried an extensive report on Charlie Hebdos decision to republish the provocative cartoons, and focussed on the terrorist attack on it in 2015 in an attempt to vilify Indian Muslims.

However, the Hindu right wings own prominent and less than edifying role over the last two decades in suppressing free expression in the fields of art and literature in India has invited universal criticism.

A few significant instances in which Hindutva groups have resorted to violence and vandalism in trying to silence artists and authors can be cited in this regard, which will illustrate the double-standards of this sudden, new love for freedom of expression, especially in matters concerning religion.

In 2014, Hindu nationalists built pressure on Penguin publishers through violence protests to withdraw internationally-acclaimed author Wendi Donigers book The Hindus: An Alternative History from circulation in India. The Hindu group Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti (SBAS) went a step ahead to accuse the University of Chicago professor of hurting the religious feelings of millions of Hindus in a lawsuit that claimed that Dongers book was a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting Hindus and their religious beliefs. Penguin eventually removed the book from circulation in India and decided to pulp its unsold copies in an out-of-court settlement with the Hindutva group.

A protest against Wendy Donigers book. Photo: hindujagruti.org

Similarly, persistent lawsuits by the SBAS and violent protests by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) since 2008 finally forced Delhi University to drop the eminent literary scholar A.K. Ramanujans essay Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five examples and three thoughts on translation from the reading list of an undergraduate course in history in 2011. In this case, the Sangh parivar thought that the essay sought to transcend not merely geographical but also religious boundaries. For the Hindutva forces, which like to believe that epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata could be read only as standardised texts within an uniform Hindu faith and tradition, the essay became a natural ideological issue to be contested.

The ABVP first launched a violent protest against the essay in 2008 when it vandalised the office of S.Z.H Jafri, the then head of history department at the Delhi University, when its representatives came to submit a memorandum against what it believed was a blashphemous essay.

ABVP activists at a protest. Photo: PTI

Speaking to Organiser, petitioner and SBAS functionary Dina Nath Batra had said soon after the university purged the essay, It was a conspiracy hatched on the part of Christian Missionaries and their fellow travellers to demean our gods and goddesses. It has been thrashed. We have decided to honour all those who raised their voice against the insult of our gods and goddesses in the university itselfAll these people will be mobilised so that they could keep a close watch over the university syllabus.

In almost similar set of events, the Mumbai University too withdrew Rohinton Mistrys novel Such a Long Journey, which was shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1991) from its syllabus after the far-right Shiv Sena protested against what it believed were derogatory references to its party members.

The then Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray had similarly threatened to burn James W. Laines Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India when the Bombay high court decided to lift a ban on it in 2011. The party felt that it portrayed Shivaji, who is considered Maharashtras greatest icon, in poor light.

The BJP-led Gujarat government, too, in 2001 banned Pulitzer Prize-winning author Joseph Lelyvelds Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India after Hindutva forces objected to implications that Gandhis relationship with a German man was homosexual in nature.

Time and again, Hindutva forces have mounted pressure on governments and authorities to ban texts which did not go down well with their political posturing.

Hindutva: An artists nightmare

In the field of art too, these forces have been even less tolerant.

It goes back to 2007 when a Hindutva mob, instigated by one Raghu Vyas, a painter and a RSS member, and a fringe group called Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, attacked legendary painter M.F. Husains exhibitions at the India International Centre, New Delhi and in London. Husain was already facing at least seven lawsuits for allegedly causing offence to Hindu sensibilities in his works and was living in a forced exile, shuttling between Dubai and London.

The next August, a dozen Hindu fanatics from the little-known extremist group called Sri Ram Sena vandalised yet another exhibition that showcased reproductions of Husains paintings in the lawns of Vithalbhai Patel House in the national capital.

Work of M.F. Husain damaged by Hindutva groups. Photo: PTI

In May 2007, on the complaint of Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists, the Gujarat police arrested an art student Chandramohan in M.S University, Vadodara, for exhibiting paintings of religious figures with anatomical details for his coursework assessment. Although no faculty members objected to it, the Hindutva activists who werent a part of the university raised a hue and cry over the paintings, and threatened the university authorities to remain silent. His struggle for justice still continues.

In 2013, an art gallery in Ahmedabad, Amdavad-ni-Gufa, showcasing works by Pakistani artists was vandalised by the VHP whose activists tore the works and ransacked furniture at the gallery. Speaking to the press, VHP Gujarat unit general secretary Ranchhod Bharvad said, How can paintings of Pakistani artists be allowed to be on display here when that country is beheading and killing our soldiers, waging a proxy war.

There are several such examples in which the Hindutva brigade have shown intolerance towards a work of art or literature. In all these episodes, they have bafflingly contended that the Hindu religious sentiments were hurt and that the art or text were malicious attempts by artists and authors to defame Hindu religion. Strangely, apart from the Hindutva groups, there was no such resistance to these creative works from the larger Hindu population.

Also Read: As the Gujarat Model Goes National, Hindutva Hunts for the Enemy in Our Midst

Politics of hurt sentiments

The Charlie Hebdo episode became a rallying point for the Jes Suis Charlie cry in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the magazines offices. Although the cartoons were rightly criticised as an attempt to assert western hegemony over others and questions were raised over their intent, it has gradually become clear over the last few decades that fundamentalists in every religion have often tried to mobilise opinion through what can be called politics of hurt sentiments. More often than not, these attacks are meant to target who the fundamentalists think of as an inside enemy.

Flowers and candles are seen outside the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdos former office on the the fifth anniversary of the attack and a siege at a Kosher supermarket which killed 17 people in Paris, January 7, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Gonzalo Fuentes

Eminent political scientist Aijaz Ahmed has attempted to theorise these phenomena by making quite discernible linkages between such fascist trends and the growth of free market capitalism. He argues that free market capitalism has succeeded in delinking nationalisms from its historical roots, Indian nationalism being one of the crucial examples.

Politics of liberalisation, he says, has created an ideological vacuum. It can only succeed if Indian nationalism can be detached from its anti-colonial origins and redefined in culturalist, irrationalist, racist terms, so that the national energies are expanded not on resistance against imperialism but on suppression of the supposed enemy within: the denominational minority, the communist Left, the pseudo-secularist, any and all oppositions to tradition as defined by Hindutva. In this context, Hindutva and liberalisation in this context are not only reconcilable but also complementary.

At the same time, free market capitalism, as art historian Geeta Kapur argues, has transformed creative work. She says that the cultural fall out of global capitalism has cancelled the very concept of avant-garde. Artistic movements like the Mexican mural, Fluxus, Arte Povera, or Dadaism engaged people in anti-war and anti-imperialist sentiments, and from these movements a radical idea of free speech emerged, one that challenged, and resisted, the status quo.

She says much of that changed in India and elsewhere because of liberalisation which ushered in capitalist ethos. Citing the Indian example, she had told this correspondent a few years ago, The 1990s saw the transition of an artist from a citizen to an interlocutor in the changed public discourse. The operational term in art shifted from creativity to production. Indian artists broke off their pact with progressive nationalism and functioned according to the needs of the market.

Against this backdrop, Kapur believes that the idea of free expression within the realm of contemporary art functions in a vacuum, and becomes susceptible to getting played at the hands of political forces with vested interests.

The renewed ecosystem in the artistic world that Kapur talks about legitimises Jyllands-Postens controversial cartoons as an exercise in free speech, while discounting entirely the havoc the cartoons may precipitate globally.

The divided responses that Charlie Hebdos decision to republish the cartoons has drawn, perhaps, is a result of the very ideological vacuum in the political and cultural spheres that Ahmed and Kapur talk about. The Hindutva groups in India, and other majoritarian forces across the world, otherwise no particular warriors for free speech, have seen an opportunity to use this for their own communal ends.

View original post here:

Why the Hindu Right, Not Usually a Champion of Free Speech, Is Supporting Charlie Hebdo - The Wire

Loading

Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius speaks to the social-distancing media pack to say people promoting proposed anti-lockdown demonstrations are in breach of emergency laws and will be locked up.

The tinfoil hat-wearing brigade are alive and well in our community. They're taking every opportunity to leverage the current situation to serve their own ridiculous notions about so-called sovereign citizens, about constitutional issues and about how 5G is going to kill your grandkids," he said.

Its batshit crazy nonsense.

A quick check of the Victorian Crimes Act (1958) indicates being batshit crazy is not a criminal offence not for bats, or people wearing tin hats, or even people who think they are bats.

And the trouble with the tinfoil hat-wearing brigade is they actually do not believe their striking headwear is in any way unusual.

Indeed, such statements may only encourage the deluded into direct action.

The very experienced and very wise former Senior Sergeant John The Pope Morrish would instruct his younger troops, Always please and never tease a fool.

Senior police have issued instructions to take a firm line with Corona Roamers. They will charge those who incite disobedience and those who want to film their own conspiracy rants as a Facebook version of the Gettysburg Address.

Cops wont argue the toss. Take it up with the courts, they say. When police collared the Conspiracy Karens we collectively cheered. But it can only take one case to tip the balance.

Pregnant women Zoe Lee Buhler is arrested in her pink flannelette pyjamas by mask wearing police for apparently promoting a planned anti-lockdown rally. She is charged with incitement and later bailed.

As is the modern way, when police arrive at her Ballarat home with a search warrant she goes for her phone, not to ring a lawyer, but to record the moment.

The police inform her of her rights then handcuff her hands behind her back. She and her partner react with shock while remaining conciliatory and courteous.

The police do not engage or negotiate. Her partner says she will take the post down. She obviously is unaware she has broken any rules. The police, quite calmly it should be said, explain they have a search warrant and she will be arrested.

By the letter of the law they are right. Luke Cornelius later goes into bat for them. But do we want PJ-wearing mums cuffed in their own homes for dumb social media posts?

A few people saw her call to arms. Millions have seen the subsequent arrest and her pyjama-clad arms being locked in handcuffs.

Rather than deter, it encourages the anti-lockdown brigade and makes the police look very close to oppressors for enforcing the new-normal laws. Expect a run on tinfoil at the supermarkets.

In the UK, experts told the government a COVID lockdown would last six weeks before people started to rebel.

In the last two weeks police here have seen a spike in people trying to beat curfews or just being a little bit batshit crazy.

The government, the experts and the anti-tinfoilers have all called for sacrifices for the health of all of us and our long-term economic recovery. But does that necessarily include free speech?

John Silvester is senior crime reporter.

Get our Coronavirus Update newsletter for the day's crucial developments at a glance, the numbers you need to know and what our readers are saying. Sign up to The Sydney Morning Herald's newsletter here and The Age's here.

View original post here:

Should the fight against the virus mean sacrificing free speech? - The Age

By: KDKA-TV News Staff

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) Mayor Bill Peduto gave a stern warning to protesters after some gathered outside his house Saturday night.

Tonight at my home private property. The 1st Amendment doesnt protect you to close down streets, without a permit. Yes, we have granted extra rights to assure free speech. But, continual denial of law, will end up in arrests. Actions have consequences, Peduto said in a tweet early Sunday morning.

Demonstrations started in downtown Pittsburgh Saturday afternoon, outside the Gateway T station. Civil Saturday Protesters then made their way to the Allegheny County Courthouse and called for police reform.

RELATED STORIES:

Protesters within the last few weeks have been holding demonstrations outside of Pedutos home in Point Breeze, and this is not the first time Peduto has been vocal about his opposition to how protesters have gathered outside his residence. In an official statement on August 19, Peduto said that he would not accept any actions that would threaten the safety of Pittsburgh residents after demonstrators stayed outside Pedutos house for more than 10 hours the night of August 18 leading into the morning of August 19.

This crosses a line that cannot be allowed to continue, causing those committing crimes against residents to face possible legal consequences for their actions, Peduto said on August 19.

Read the rest here:

Mayor Peduto Says Protesters Will Be Arrested If There Is Continual Denial Of Law - CBS Pittsburgh

SIR Mr Punch, a figure of colonial violence (White people were creators of racism, says chief librarian, report, August 30)? What a nonsensical aspersion on the cheeky chap voted an icon of England in a 2006 poll.

That white, Victorian patriarch, CharlesDickens whose works can still, Im sure, be consulted in the British Library wrote in a letter in 1849: The street Punch is one of those extravagant reliefs from the realities of life which would lose its hold upon the people if it were made moral and instructive. I regard it as quite harmless in its influence.

The Victoria & Albert Museums website is to be congratulated for its dispassionate and informative history of Punch and Judy, including references to the Punch and Judy College of Professors and to Punch and Judy showmen (swatchel omis).

Thats the way to do it!

Duncan McAraBishopbriggs, East Dunbartonshire

SIR I was particularly surprised that a bust of the botanist Sir Joseph Banks has been singled out for posthumous accusation.

At the request of Banks (asEndeavours chief botanist), Captain James Cook took a racially diverse team of civilian scientists with him on the Endeavour. They included George Dorlton and Thomas Richmond.

In Tahiti, Banks forged a great friendship with Tupaia, who joined the Endeavour as an honoured guest. Tupaia was a polymath who was greatly respected by Banks and Cook and was skilled in geography, meteorology, navigation and other indigenous arts. Without his help the Endeavour mightnot have returned to Britain. Sadly, he perished in Batavia (now Jakarta) and his death deeply upset Banks. Another Tahitian, Omai, travelled to England and was taken around the country by Banks. While he was in England, Omai was feted by society. He was introduced to King George III and taken to the state opening of Parliament before returning to Tahiti.

Far from plundering, Sir Joseph Banks introduced useful plants and sources of food around the world, including pigs to the indigenous people of New Zealand and breadfruit to the Caribbean and central and southern America (where it is now a staple food).

James HughesTewkesbury, Gloucestershire

SIR The cultural revisionists now on the attack are iconoclasts destructive, not constructive. They are giddy on their own virtue and power, though often plain wrong in how they select their targets; they are in the process of upsetting large numbers of people, and act at no real cost to themselves all while achieving nothing of any substance for the victims they claim to be helping.

Mark BaleOxford

SIR Rather than fixate on our history, surely we should be using our intellectual, economic and political influence to address the many current, gross obscenities of our modern world.

Examples include the persecution of Uighurs in China; the persecution of Christians, Yazidi and Shia in Iraq and Syria; the worldwide trafficking of young girls; the lack of civil rights for citizens of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, the Yemen and beyond; and the plight of Myanmar's Rohingya.

Denise BackhouseWoking, Surrey

SIR Andrew Smith (Letters, August 30) should study the positive impact of Ebbsfleet International station to reassure him that the proposed new station in Thanet will bring benefits.

It is likely to remove commuter traffic from the towns, speeding up journey times for commuters and for those travelling locally. These benefits will also be experienced by many living outside of Thanet.

Edward ChurchFaversham, Kent

SIR The current economic situation is vastly different from the position in February 2020, when Boris Johnson decided to press ahead with the HS2 rail project. Any money saved from its cancellation should be diverted towards providing additional capacity in hospitals and schools.

Susan HopcraftWarwick

SIR KL Parsons (Letters, August 30) voices concern for the future of small retail outlets that rely on office workers for their income if everyone is working from home.

My concern is also for those office workers when employers realise that, thanks to modern communications, home could easily be in India.

Terry LloydDerby

SIR Journalists and some others may find working from home satisfactory but there are good reasons why most workers outside manufacturing, construction, services and similar occupations are gathered together in offices. Trainees learn from working with and observing their superiors.

More telephone lines are available; colleagues can take a call and hold it while you are already on two, and if the job involves markets then much can be learnt simply from the activity (or otherwise) of other people in the room.

Civil servants need to be in their departments for the short chat next door, as well as for the short-notice official meeting and not least for the Minister [or permanent-secretary], can I come and see you for five minutes? moments.

Stephen GarnerColchester, Essex

SIR Professor Phil Turner, one of the countrys leading orthopaedic surgeons, describes the impact on patients as hip and knee replacements have been postponed over the last five months (report, August 30).

End-stage arthritis is not adequately treated with painkillers; indeed, prolonged opiate use is neither effective nor good for the patient. Thus, it is imperative that the prolonged waiting times for arthritis surgery be addressed. However, while waiting for surgery, overweight and obese patients should take the opportunity to reduce their pain by losing weight.

Clinical trial evidence from Denmark shows that overweight and obese people with knee osteoarthritis can lose about 10kg of body weight (one and a half stone) using total diet replacement formula diets and maintain that weight loss, with a large reduction in symptom scores especially for pain. Reduction in knee pain improves sleep quality and makes movement easier. We have seen patients able to play with their grandchildren again and get back on their bicycles to cycle around Copenhagen.

In Denmark we have demonstrated that weight loss before knee replacement surgery is feasible. In Britain, a feasibility trial which combined weight loss with analgesia, insoles, and exercise is under analysis. This type of dietary intervention is already in use in Scotland and in an NHS England trial for diabetes remission.

Dr Anthony LeedsSenior FellowProfessor Henning BliddalDirector, Parker Arthritis InstituteCopenhagen, DenmarkProfessor Hamish SimpsonConsultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, University of Edinburgh

SIR Customer service, which has been in its death throes for as long as I can remember, has finally been sent to the madhouse by Covid-19 (Letters, August 30).

Telling us that our call is valuable, or will be answered shortly, is no consolation when struggling through five futile attempts to make contact by telephone, totaling 100 minutes of wasted time.

No email address was available, so I wrote a letter, to which there was no reply. When my call was finally answered, I was told somewhat sheepishly that the company did not like letters. Ironically, when wanting my business, the same company had sent me a letter.

Kathleen DickHarrogate, West Yorkshire

SIR Like Zoe Strimpel (Features, August 30), I feel sorry fornice people called Karen whose name has made them objects of derision for being domineering and unwoke.

The same thing happened to those unlucky enough to be called Kevin about 20 years ago, when the name was deemed typical of an uncouth youth.

Fiona WildCheltenham, Gloucestershire

We accept letters by post, fax and email only. Please include name, address, work and home telephone numbers. ADDRESS: 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0DT FAX: 020 7931 2878 EMAIL: stletters@telegraph.co.uk FOLLOW: Telegraph Letters on Twitter @LettersDesk

More:

Letters: Paying the price for the invaluable right of free speech - Telegraph.co.uk

A quick drive through Denvers Lowry neighborhood late last week was akin to a voyage through a haven of tranquility and quiet, with rows of homes fronted by tidy lawns and smiling, helmeted families biking down tree-lined streets.

But just 48 hours prior, this community on the citys east side was at the center of a sharp dispute over the limits of free expression in the midst of what is shaping up to be one of the nastiest, bare-knuckle election seasons in recent memory.

In the current climate, with a lot of these social justice issues in the spotlight, I think it is important for our family to show our support and beliefs in these issues, said Melissa Steele, a 14-year resident of the neighborhood, who has a sign in her yard declaring support for Black lives, womens rights and science. I think its a time when we need to be dealing with these issues.

But the Lowry Community Master Association, the homeowners association that oversees the nearly 2,600 homes that sit on former site of the Lowry Air Force Base, wasnt as open to the idea. It sent letters to Steele and some of her neighbors telling them they had to take down their signs per the HOAs policy forbidding unauthorized displays of any kind outside of a strictly defined political season.

After a few headlines and news stories on the controversy, the Lowry board of directors in a special meeting Wednesday night reversed themselves and amended their sign code.

Given the exigent circumstances and the boards desire to help our community express support for issues they endorse, the LCMA has amended the community signage policy to allow two yard signs, the board said in a statement. This policy is effective today, September 3, 2020.

State law leaves sign regulation largely up to homeowner associations, except from 45 days prior to an election to seven days after the vote, during which citizens can display a sign that carries a message intended to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the election of a candidate, the recall of a public official, or the passage of a ballot issue.

Last weeks about-face will likely not be the last time HOAs and politics clash, especially as this Novembers election approaches amid a deadly global pandemic and protests and violence over racial justice issues. Molly Foley-Healy, an attorney who has long represented homeowners associations in Colorado, said the governing bodies are in a no-win situation when it comes to balancing the desire to enhance property values by maintaining a consistent aesthetic while at the same time allowing homeowners to express themselves.

Because of the culture wars were having and the extreme passion people feel on any side of these issues, for an HOA board to attempt to police these positions is unenviable, to say the least, she said. I would call on all owners living in HOAs to be sensitive to their neighbors and their board of directors.

In most cases, HOAs arent targeting what the sign says, Foley-Healy said, but the existence of the sign.

But Heather Luehrs, a Lowry resident, said she received a letter to take down her yard signs only after she recently planted a Black Lives Matter display in her grass. She said she had had a sign welcoming people to the neighborhood on display for two years before that.

What saddened me is that the Black Lives Matter sign got this going, she said.

In an email, the Lowry Community Master Association said it enforces its sign policy without regard to politics or positions, issuing violations this year for displays supporting teachers and health care workers, graduation acknowledgments, and pleas to conserve water.

The dispute in Lowry is far from the first of its kind. Three years ago, a Loveland man made news when he refused his HOAs orders to take down an early American flag painted on wood that was hanging on his home. Eight years before that faceoff, a woman fought her HOA in Boulder after it told her to remove a sign she had put in front of her house proclaiming her opposition to mass slaughter in the Darfur region of Sudan.

And in 2006, an HOA in Pagosa Springs apologized to a couple for threatening to fine them $25 a day for displaying a wreath that had been fashioned into the shape of the peace sign. The wreath had been characterized by HOA leaders as a divisive symbol that violated the subdivision rules against displaying signs or advertisements.

Bridget Sebern, executive director of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Community Associations Institute, said homeowners agree to HOA rules when they move into an association-governed community.

While some of these rules may conflict with unfettered expression, these rules are in place to preserve the character of a community, protect property values and meet the established expectations of residents, she said. One persons free speech might be a neighbors eyesore. In all cases of disagreement, we encourage open dialogue, flexibility and, when possible, compromise.

Luehrs said she hopes the brouhaha in Lowry last week will prompt vigorous debate and discussion that leads to consensus on whats acceptable and whats not when it comes to wearing ones politics on ones sleeve.

This doesnt mean its the end of the conversation it means its the beginning of the conversation, she said.

Read this article:

Denver neighborhood tiff over yard signs is just the beginning in year filled with polarizing issues - The Denver Post

Suresh Chavhanke, the Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News, a Hindi channel, recently claimed to have done an expose alleging that the Civil Services have been infiltrated by the Muslim community. What he terms asBureaucracy Jihad, is a classic instance of hate speech. While students of JamiaMillia Islamia approached the High Court alleging that the said program endangers their life and liberty and makes them targets of communal attacks, others approached the Supreme Court. This explainer deals with what hate speech is all about.

THE Blacklaws Dictionary defines hate speech as, Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.

The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a) provides the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, under article 19(2), the constitution also provides for the reasonable restrictions against free speechin the interests of 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.

Hate speech constitutes a criminal charge under Section 153A, which is the offence of promoting communal disharmony or feelings of hatred between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

153B of the Indian Penal Code categorises the offence of promoting religious, racist, linguistic, community or caste hatred or incites any religious, caste or any other disharmony or enmity within India, through any speech either in written form or spoken. Section 298 of the IPC, similarly, classifies the offence of uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. Likewise, Section 505 of the IPC, criminalises the act of delivering speeches that incite violence. Sections 295A and 509A also have similar provisions. In 2014, while addressing a Public interest Litigation seeking guidelines for regulating Hate Speech, the Supreme Court made certain observations.

Hate speech is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression.

The 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, also criminalises hate speech by election candidates. In 2014, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court of India[2014(11)SCC477], seeking guidelines on hate speech during elections. The Supreme Court observed that hate speech attempts to marginalise individuals on the basis of their membership in a group. This impacts such people socially by diminishing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, the Court observed, lays the groundwork for aggravated attacks on the vulnerable communities in the future. This weakens the ability of people to participate fully in a democracy. The Court also observed that existing laws in India were sufficient to tackle hate speeches.The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution, the Court said.

These laws have often been misused to victimise artists, journalists, and activists by communal forces, on the pretext of causing communal disharmony. For instance, activists like Harsh Mander have been accused of delivering hate speech, despite the written text of his speech being available in which he advocates peace and love among religious communities. On the other hand, politicians of the ruling party who openly called for shooting peaceful anti-Citizen Amendment Act protesters have not been arrested or tried under the prevailing hate speech laws.

There is no internationally agreed definition for hate speech. According to the United Nations, hate speech is defined as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factors.

it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to restrict free speech, a proximate and direct nexus must be found with any imminent danger to the community.

International human rights law has set standards by which states are supposed to adhere to strong directives against hate speech in their respective jurisdictions.

Even though the essential right to free speech is a fundamental right, it also has certain reasonable restrictions that go with it. As per Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right of freedom of speech can be regulated in order to honour the rights of others and in the interest of public order, public health or morals. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR also declares that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prevented by law. Similarly, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides reasonable duties and restrictions during the exercise of ones fundamental right to free speech.

The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speechprovides that member states must identify and support actors who challenge hate speech. They are also mandated to build capacity and develop policies to address hate speech. The Rabat Plan of Action, that was adopted by experts after a series of consultations that were convened by the United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) derived authoritative conclusions and strong recommendations for the implementation of Article 20(2) of the ICCPR.

In Europe, the Constitutions of Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, alongside the provisions of the right to free speech, also prescribe reasonable restrictions for the same. These restrictions follow the standards provided under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. These countries, further break down the constitutional provisions through other legal instruments regulating media laws, laws on equality and non-discrimination, laws to protect national, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities etc. There are also specific laws to suit the regional requirements within countries like Germany and Italy.

In 2017, Germany passed a law by which social media was bound to pay a fine if they did not take down hateful content in time.

The Supreme Court of Canada opined that hate speech laws are indeed a part of the global commitment to eradicate racism and communal disharmony.

In 2018, Switzerland passed a law against hate speech and discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community.

In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act,1998, provides that everyone has the right to free speech. However, this free speech is regulated with the reasonable restrictions clause that includesformalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as prescribed by law and is necessary for a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Section 4 of Public Order Act, 1986 in the UK makes it an offencefor any person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or indulge in behaviour, or distribute or display to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Interestingly, the United States of America does not have a law against hate speech which is protected under the First Amendment Act.

Through the Press Council of India Act, 1978, the Press Council of India (PCI) was constituted. The PCI is the regulating body that ensures that the press functions in a tasteful manner, in accordance with journalistic standards. The PCI has a code of conduct for journalists that aims to foster the maintenance of high professional standards, public taste and respect for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. On the basis of these codes of conduct, the PCI can also censor newspapers or news agencies. In fact, the PCI has the power of a civil court that can summon and examine people and evidence in the same nature of a judicial proceeding.

Television news, on the other hand, is regulated by the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. This act governs the code of conduct of the operation of cable television networks in India. This code also prohibitsthe broadcast of news that violates decency or attacks community or religious sentiments. These guidelines are called the programme code.

Any violation of the program code is investigated and taken cognisance of by the Inter-Ministerial Committee.

Hate speech is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. This issue was considered in the case ofCanada v Taylor,[1990] 3 SCR 892where the constitutional validity of hate speech laws was challenged on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. It was held that hate and propaganda contribute little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in the quest for truth, the promotion of individual selfdevelopment, or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged. The Court also observed that it undermines the dignity and selfworth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and openmindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality. The Supreme Court of Canada opined that hate speech laws are indeed a part of the global commitment to eradicate racism and communal disharmony.

.activists like Harsh Mander have been accused of delivering hate speech, despite the written text of his speech being available in which he advocates peace and love among religious communities.

The Indian Supreme Court had also referred to this judgement in 2014. The Court had also observed the holding of another observation by the Supreme Court by which they said thatthe effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. In the case ofRangarajan etc., v P. Jagjivan Ram 1989(2)SCC 574, it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to restrict free speech, a proximate and direct nexus must be found with any imminent danger to the community. This nexus cannot be far fetched, remote, or conjectural.The Court held that our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. It should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to public interests.

(Ujjaini Chatterji is an Advocate based in Delhi and a regular contributor with The Leaflet.)

See the article here:

Why is free speech different from hate speech? - TheLeaflet - The Leaflet

Another defense of sorts has been to claim that even this cancel-culture lite is not dangerous, because it has no real effect. When, for instance, 153 intellectuals signed an open letter in Harpers arguing for the value of free speech (I was one of them), we were told that we were comfortable bigwigs chafing at mere criticism, as if all that has been happening is certain people being taken to task, as opposed to being shamed and stripped of honors.

Read: A deeply provincial view of free speech

To the extent that the new progressives acknowledge that some prominent people have been unfairly tarredincluding the food columnist Alison Roman, the data analyst David Shor, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art senior curator Gary Garrelsthey often insist that these are mere one-off detours rather than symptoms of a general cultural sea change.

For example, in July I tweeted that I (as well as my Bloggingheads sparring partner Glenn Loury) have been receiving missives since May almost daily from professors living in constant fear for their career because their opinions are incompatible with the current woke playbook. Then various people insisted that I was, essentially, lying; they simply do not believe that anyone remotely reasonable has anything to worry about.

However, hard evidence points to a different reality. This year, the Heterodox Academy conducted an internal member survey of 445 academics. Imagine expressing your views about a controversial issue while at work, at a time when faculty, staff, and/or other colleagues were present. To what extent would you worry about the following consequences? To the hypothetical My reputation would be tarnished, 32.68 percent answered very concerned and 27.27 percent answered extremely concerned. To the hypothetical My career would be hurt, 24.75 percent answered very concerned and 28.68 percent answered extremely concerned. In other words, more than half the respondents consider expressing views beyond a certain consensus in an academic setting quite dangerous to their career trajectory.

So no one should feign surprise or disbelief that academics write to me with great frequency to share their anxieties. In a three-week period early this summer, I counted some 150 of these messages. And what they reveal is a very rational culture of fear among those who dissent, even slightly, with the tenets of the woke left.

The degree of sheer worry among the people writing to me is poignant, and not just among nontenured faculty. (They write to me privately, and for that reason I will not share names.) One professor notes, Even with tenure and authority, I worry that students could file spurious Title IX complaints or that students could boycott me or remove me as Chair. I have no reason to suppose that he is being dramatic, because exactly this, he says, happened to his predecessor.

View post:

Academics Are Really Worried About Cancel Culture - The Atlantic

Shelley Walia

Professor Emeritus, English & Cultural Studies, Panjab University

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King Jr.

In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, John Rawls A Theory of Justice had a long-lasting impact on American anti-statists and British egalitarians, as well as on the larger issues of civil disobedience, international justice and commitment of the state and citizens in capitalist welfare states. Such a political philosophy aimed to legitimise political change by appealing to public intellectuals as moral agents of reform.

This development occurred in a culture of racism, bigotry and ultra-nationalism that has dominated the democracies ever since. Plagued by the crackdown on dissent, the situation in many countries is exacerbated by uncertain employment, housing and healthcare. A prejudiced leadership, partial media and the demise of the Opposition has given rise to the increasing intrusion of the private sphere.

Varavara Rao, poet-activist with a singular voice of protest, languishes in jail. GN Saibaba, a disabled professor, remains incarcerated with no trial in sight. With baseless and flimsy evidence, their lock-up violates civil liberties and subverts the constitutional order. Some fine scholars and writers come under police and judicial harassment for standing up for the deprived and the marginalised. It becomes a matter of anguish for the nation when a citizens fundamental right to life and liberty is denied.

However, radical change is optimistically envisaged with the possibility of producing a politics of freedom and resistance, with the hope of finding solutions to the nagging issues confronting a democracy. The defence of bona fide beliefs of an individual in a democracy screams for attention in an environment of pervert rational thinking and brash exercise of Orwellian surveillance for absolute ideological control.

The last few months have been exceptionally volatile in the history of the democratic working of public institutions. Democracy and free speech are under siege. For example, Prashant Bhushan, in declining to tender an apology to the Supreme Court, has secured his dignity and his sense of responsibility to the future of Indias democracy. His is a moral act defined by affirming the inviolability of free speech, public values and truth that resonate in Vaclav Havels statement on speaking truth to power: When I speak of living within truth, I naturally do not have in mind only products of conceptual thought, such as a protest or a letter written by a group of intellectuals. It can be any means by which a person or a group revolts against manipulation. Such a stand against the depravity of the political moment is an earnest attempt to uphold the power of the powerless and the fairness of justice.

Bhushan has not shown any disrespect for the judicial system, but has peacefully redirected the attention of the nation to the quality of justice and the dignity of our public institutions. A civil, humanistic public action against the jeopardising of democratic institutions cannot be anything but ethical to the core and, unquestionably, not invite the over-reaction of criminal reprimand through a self-deprecating contempt order.

Recent social and political upheavals in the wake of sectarian violence or the increasing infringement of public space has raised questions about the future of liberty and dignity, freedom and justice, calling for a scrutiny of the working of the Reserve Bank, judiciary, police or civil services. With politics taking on the character of regressive and unabashedly unconstitutional right-wing intimidation through the misuse of public institutions, public oppression becomes acute and expectations of the institutional foundations of our democracy fail. At such critical moments, the critical-minded progressive thinkers rise to counter any form of unanimity or mindless obedience to the capricious assertions of the leadership, fighting for the survival of a culture that reflects on deeper ethical and social concerns.

It is a fact that radical social transformations have been brought about not by totalitarian means, but by peoples participation in offering resistance or critiques of the retrogressive functioning of institutions and the arbitrary suppression of any opposition. The end of debate is apparently the outcome of the end of history syndrome that has dominated the liberal democracies of the world.

The liberal recipe stands botched in ushering a new world order promised by the happy birth of a global community. History brings us face to face with the threat of despotism, provoking public intellectuals to rise up against the obsessive use of raw power. At the irreducible existential moment of economic or military crisis when the row between democracy and fascism, freedom and tyranny becomes an unrelenting political encounter, they advance an alternative vision with a global appeal of a new reinvention of participatory democracy and free thinking.

The historical necessity of the times inspires the freedom-loving people to adopt strategies of non-violent resistance and non-cooperation, thereby echoing an ethical dimension of the politics of living in truth with a sense of individual responsibility.

The lesson to be learnt from Rawls, Havel or historians like Howard Zinn is to exist in the embrace of robust forms of free speech practical and responsible enough to create an environment with a commitment to challenge the state apparatus and institutions that it undemocratically uses for its authority.

Not surprisingly, intellectuals like Arundhati Roy, Ramachandra Guha, Harsh Mander or Prashant Bhushan have opened spaces for new civil and democratic politics in India, underpinned by notions of truth, accountability and civility. They bring their adverse stand into the shaping of the world through their scrutiny of the social and political world with a belief in their sense of belongingness to the state free from any sense of alienation or antagonism.

Why then should the state feel a sense of disquiet at resistance movements hurling ideas of emancipation and justice? It is wrong to presume that autocracies can wipe out the diversity of political thought. The spectre of Marx hangs on the contemporary world and dialectical materialism remains an antidote to ideological unilateralism, a condemnation of the systems that have usurped socialism and progressive movements. Indeed, the constitutional values of liberalism cannot be ignored for long.

See the original post:

Crackdown on free speech a threat to justice - The Tribune India

At the very least, Syracuse Universitys decision to place a professor on administrative leave for referring to COVID-19 as the Wuhan Flu and the Chinese Communist Party Virus demonstrates the administrations oversensitivity and willingness to fold under pressure from the speech police. At most, it represents SUs zealous crackdown on free speech.

In their joint statement emailed to the SU community on Tuesday, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Karin Ruhlandt and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu pillory one of their own staff members for his bold decision to place these terms in his syllabus.

Racist, xenophobic, bigoted and hateful are the allegations the two administrators circuitously levy against this professor.

So its hateful now to attribute to an illness the name of the geological region where it originated? In that case, infections like Ebola, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and Zika (just to name a few) need renaming as well.

Naming illnesses after places is time-saving and allows for greater distinction between similar diseases. While examples do exist of highly distasteful disease naming-schemes, like AIDS at times referred to as gay-related immune deficiency, the naming process is almost never intended to humiliate or shame a group of people.

In all fairness, very few people likely desire to have their neck of the woods be associated with disease and death. Folks who share names with hurricanes are frequently reminded by meteorologists not to take it personally. Their justification? More easily recognizable storm names generate greater public awareness: more lives saved.

Nevertheless, SU administrators are not interested in reasonable explanations. They have, instead, decided that labeling COVID-19 after the totalitarian regime that actively suppressed life-saving, early reporting isnt a righteous calling-out of a malicious government but an act of vicious racism.

How many lives and livelihoods could have been saved had the Chinese government sounded the alarms in December when cases of this new virus started piling up? Blood is on the hands of the Chinese government, but dont let SU administrators catch you acknowledging that reality.

Published on August 25, 2020 at 10:43 pm

More here:

Opinion | Putting professor on leave is a crackdown on free speech - The Daily Orange

The sensitivity meter in Stonington needs adjustment. Communities are concerned that the level of violence allowed on the streets of our cities has progressed from legitimate protest to lawlessness when criminal elements like Antifa, unchallenged,run wild with looting, burning and life-threatening actions.

The two reposted twitter messages were from American citizens with a different opinion than the whining liberals, who prefer to talk over and drown out the First Amendment. The first twitter message could have just as well been directed towards the conduct of the two accused in the hotel incident. Have any of the critics asked police commission member Bob OShaughnessy? Besides "We the People" have had enough. That is pretty much the content of both of those articles.

The Democratic Party is desperate, standing on the wall at the Alamo knowing the outcome.I have known Bob since 1970 and have worked with him and for him. He is a retired Connecticut State Police captain and since his retirement has done more civic volunteer work than all his critics combined. This patriot means to draw a line in the sand.

James L. Miller

Retired Connecticut state trooper

Salem

Read more:

Standing by O'Shaughnessy, and for free speech - theday.com

SALT LAKE CITY A summer of protests highlighting the First Amendments protection of free speech has culminated in a movement highlighting the Second Amendments protection of the right to bear arms.

Members of Utah Citizens United have begun showing up at protests against police brutality carrying semi-automatic rifles.

Critics said that has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.

So what happens when those two constitutionally protected rights seem to conflict with one another?

As the KSL Investigators learned, legal precedent has some catching up to do.

Provo native Casey Robertson formed Utah Citizens Alarm after a protest in his hometown on June 29 ended in a shooting when a protester opened fire at a driver whose vehicle was being blocked at an intersection.

It hit home that the violence is now here, Robertson explained.

That is when he took to Facebook and put out the call for support.

Who wants to come down there with me and show em were not going to put up with violence in our town, he said about his Facebook post.

Members of UCA have since attended rallies across Utah, oftentimes wearing military fatigues, tactical gear and carrying AR-15 style rifles. Many also wear face coverings, making them unidentifiable.

They show up to protests, Robertson said, to show solidarity with law enforcement.

We back law enforcement 100% as a group and they appreciate that because law enforcement is getting a horrible, terrible name right now, Robertson said. Were simply there to be eyes and ears for the police and just be a deterrent for violence. Thats it.

When asked if he encourages members of his group to come armed to protests, Robertson said, We encourage people to be aware of the laws and follow them closely.

Im not sorry if were intimidating. Im not. Utah citizens want to be intimidating. We dont want violence here in Utah. We do not want chaos and anarchy, Robertson continued.

While violence and property damage have occurred, of the dozens of protests that have taken place in Utah this summer, most have been peaceful.

While Robertson and his members argue their presence at protests absolutely deters violence, property damage and destruction, activists like Josianne Petit believe what UCAs presence really deters is people from exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

Petit started an organization for parents of black children called Mama and Papa Panthers. She has used her voice to speak out at many protests this summer.

They say theyre there to keep the peace. Well, the way my group and like groups have shown that were here for non-violent protests is we dont bring enough ammo to take out a small village, Petit said. They are weapons of war. They are not made to disarm or disable an opponent.

Petit is passionate and outspoken about the need for police reform and the need to end police brutality. She is demanding change and knows doing so is her First Amendment right.

Were just asking for the same treatment when we engage with police officers as white people have come to expect, Petit said. Its the cause of liberation.

She said the presence of heavily armed, masked men and women at largely non-violent protests has resulted in serious fear. In some cases, the concern for protesters personal safety is so concerning, she said, they are shying away from exercising their First Amendment right.

Their tactic is working, right? Its silencing the vast majority of black voices here in Utah, Petit said.

Shes equally worried about another intimidation tactic she said is employed by members of UCA.

They have made a point of stalking us at every single event that we hold, she said. They just monitor our Facebook page and if we say were going to an event, they show up.

Robertson admitted that as his group grows, its expanding focusing on intelligence gathering.

We have quite a few people that have stepped up and that have created false accounts where we can infiltrate some of their conversations and some of their planning and groups, Robertson said.

The KSL Investigators went to Jess Anderson, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, to get his perspective on UCA and similar groups.

We appreciate their support for law enforcement, Anderson said specifically about Utah Citizens Alarm, However, its not done with the proper training. Its not done with a proper perspective or understanding.

He made it clear: when it comes to law enforcements interactions with UCA and groups like it, there is no working relationship.

Listen, we didnt request you. Youre not the backup to the police, Anderson explained. Theyve been respectful of that so far, but it causes concern to the law enforcement community just because it puts us in a very peculiar situation, knowing and understanding that if something were to happen, guess whos caught right in the middle of this? Its now the police [who] have an armed standoff.

As for UCAs aim of intelligence gathering, Anderson said, We, in the policing world, have all of our access to good intelligence, to which we are using in a most respectful way.

At what point do intimidation tactics cross the line and infringe on protesters Constitutional rights? University of Utah law professor RonNell Andersen Jones said theres little clear legal precedent.

Certainly the Supreme Court has recognized that if someone engages in a behavior that rises to the level of being what the court calls a true threat, then it loses its First Amendment protection and your capacity to express yourself with a weapon in your hand changes. You dont have the ability to continue to invoke Constitutional protection and the government can regulate you from threatening other people in that way.

However, the courts have not decided if a large number of firearms at a public protest rises to the level of a true threat.

The bare existence of the firearm on their person under Utah State law isnt necessarily a threat against another person. Its an exercise of the open carry right, said Jones. Were still waiting for jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court that helps us to understand the boundaries of firearms in public.

Case law may not be far away.

There are lots of test cases that seem to be emerging all across the country as the Black Lives Matter movement and other protest movements are generating these conflicts on a scale that we havent seen before, said Jones.

Its actually, in some respects, quite remarkable that weve had since 1790, to have some of these conflicts emerge and havent had the chance to sort of tussle with them, she said. But its also a uniquely modern problem with modern firearms and with modern protest movements. And so sometimes it takes time for the Constitution to catch up with the problems that we face in the real world.

Casey Robertson said his group believes in the right to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest.

We dont exist to show up at protests, said Robertson. However, weve seen that these protests tend to get violent and Antifa is working through these protest groups to get their point across which is disruption and anarchy.

Antifa short for anti-fascists is a political group with no leader and no clear organization. Their ideology embraces violence as a tool to combat far-right extremists and white nationalist groups.

And its who Robertson believes is the real enemy of America.

Anderson, however, said Antifa is currently no cause for concern in Utah.

As far as identifying who those somewhat terrorist groups are, or otherwise really anarchistic groups, we do keep a close watch on that, Anderson said. By and large, we do not see that being an issue or a problem to the point where its causing us complete panic or concern.

Less than two months after Robertson created the Utah Citizens Alarm page on Facebook, it had attracted nearly 20,000 members.

Facebook shut down the page on Aug. 19, along with nearly 1,000 other accounts. The social networking company said the move was aimed at limiting violent rhetoric tied to anarchists, political militias and followers of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory.

According to NBC News, Facebooks policy states, Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts associated with these movements and organizations will be removed when they discuss potential violence.

Robertson said that will not deter his members. They created a website to continue operations online.

UCA is still here. We are still strong. This Facebook thing in no way will affect the momentum that we have created, Robertson said in a video posted on Monday.

Robertson said he is working on more formally organizing the group by providing members with training and legal support.

He also said UCA is more thoroughly vetting its members and hopes to change their image.

As weve grown, weve realized that an AR may not be the best thing to be carrying in a situation like that, Robertson said.

Visit link:

KSL Investigates: Does armed protest have a chilling effect on free speech? - KSL.com

LANSING, Mich. Lawsuits have been filed that accuse Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of violating the First Amendment by restricting the number of people who can attend political rallies and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson of violating election law by allowing online application for absentee ballots.

The suits were filed by the Election Integrity Fund and One Nation Michigan.

The suit against the governor claims Whitmers executive orders limiting the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings virtually eliminate retail politics. It also takes issue with the governors ability to change the rules at any time without notice, claiming that is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The suit against the secretary of state claims Benson made it possible to request absentee ballots online, violating state election law the requires a voters signature on such applications. The suit also claims Bensons plan to send applications to all voters is also a violation of state law that requires voters to ask for an application.

The lawsuits were filed in the Michigan Court of Claims in Lansing and asks the court to give the suits a quick hearing and to stop the governors and secretarys actions.

See the original post:

Lawsuits accuse Gov. Whitmer of squelching free speech and Sec. Of State Benson of violating election law - Fox17

Free speech is under threat in the United States. Thats what numerous speakers have told the Republican convention, which wraps up Thursday night.

Theyre right. And the biggest threat comes from the man theyre re-nominating for president, Donald J. Trump.Trump has called major media outlets enemies of the people, warning that he might withhold their broadcast licenses. He encouraged supporters at one of his rallies to assault protesters, promising to pay any legal bills that resulted. And he ordered the removal of peaceful demonstrators from the front of the White House, all so he could pose for a photo-op while holding a Bible.

You havent heard anything about that at the GOP convention, of course, where every attack is blamed on the other side. And thats the biggest problem for free speech in our country right now. We all want the right to speak, but were perfectly happy to deny it to somebody else. And that isnt free speech at all.

So numerous presenters at the convention railed against cancel culture, complaining that many Americans are prevented or discouraged from speaking their minds. At universities, especially, students find themselves suppressing their beliefs to fit into the acceptable groupthink, as Tiffany Trump, the presidents daughter, declared on Tuesday night.

Thats true. According to a wide swath of research, growing numbers of Americans bite their tongues for fear of being canceled on social media. Disagreement is fine; indeed, its the lifeblood of democracy. But when we seek to obliterate our opponents, rejecting not just their ideas but their humanity, we make honest discussion impossible.

But guess who is the Canceler-in-Chief? Donald Trump, of course. To Trump, political challengers arent simply people who disagree with him; theyre losers, dummies, morons, and more. He has called Mexicans rapists, women pigs, and African countries shitholes. Almost every day brings another vile presidential tweet, denigrating someones intellect, gender, or racial background.

Yet speaker after speaker at the GOP convention condemned opponents for cancelling them. Joe Biden and the radical left are now coming for our freedom of speech and want to bully us into submission, Donald Trump, Jr., charged. Seriously? What is his father, if not the quintessential bully? And how can Republicans champion free speech, but ignore the presidents own attacks on the same?

Alas, my fellow liberals have too often demonstrated a similar inconsistency. When Trump or another Republican endangers speech, we raise up a hue and cry. But when the threat comes from our own side, we keep quiet or even cheer it along.

So after prominent University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig tweeted out critical remarks about Black Lives Matter, we called for his head. Ditto for UCLA business professor Gordon Klein, who was placed on leave after questioning students demand to change his course requirements in light of the traumas suffered by African Americans.

And when respected Intercept reporter Lee Fang posted an interview with an African American about black victims of crime, Fang was denounced as a racistreallyon social media. Never mind that Fang himself is mixed-race, or that he attended predominantly African-American public schools as a child. The Twitter mob wanted blood, and it got it.

Enough already. If you really believe in free speech, it isnt enough to complain about somebody else. You have to put your own house in order, and grant other people the same liberty that you want for yourself.We believe in freedom of thought and expression, Tiffany Trump told the GOP convention. Think what you want. Seek out the truth. Learn from those with different opinions. Then freely, make your voice heard.

If only her father would follow her advice! The biggest danger to free speech is Donald Trump, who has used his own voice to suppress different opinions at every turn. And the second biggest danger is that the rest of us are imitating Trump, all in the guise of resisting him.

See the original post:

Trumpism Is the Real Cancel Culture - Washington Monthly

Among the encroachments on Miltons three supreme liberties contained in Humza Yousafs Hate Crime Bill is a cloturing of the debate on gender identity and the law. Proposals to remove medical expertise from the gender recognition process have either stalled or been shelved, but not before their radical scope prompted a lively dispute about the ethics of gender identity, sex-based rights and the freedom to dissent. That freedom will be meaningfully reduced in Scotland if the Hate Crime Bill becomes law because it is a piece of legislation that begins from the position that all legitimate debate has already concluded.

The Bill creates an offence of stirring up hatred against a list of protected characteristics, including transgender identity. That term was defined in Scots law a decade ago in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 as referring to:

transvestism, transsexualism, intersexuality or having, by virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, changed gender, or any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity.

The explanatory notes to the Hate Crime Bill advance a new, more expansive definition that includes:

those who identify as male but were registered as female at birth, those who identify as female but were registered as male at birth, non-binary people and cross-dressing people.

Not only is this a much broader definition than that of gender reassignment in the Equality Act, the Hate Crime Bill defines its terms in opposition to those of the 2010 Act, with the accompanying notes specifying that transgender identity:

does not only refer to people with a Gender Recognition Certificate or who have undergone, are undergoing, (or propose to undergo) medical or surgical interventions.

This is a Polonian definition: to thine own pronouns be true. Identifying themselves along these lines may make life easier for transgender people, and who would object to that? But a law that adopts such arbitrary and subjective parameters - and provides for custodial punishments for offending against them - is a tripwire pulled tight around personal and expressive liberty.

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM), independent and respected analysts of Scottish public policy, warns that a failure to clarify what is meant by this term is likely to add to the already substantial risks around freedom of expression. MBM notes that, while the Bill sticks to broad themes, much more specific definitions are already in use by bodies such as Police Scotland and NHS Lanarkshire, and in both cases are:

grounded in a persons internal feelings, and specifically in a belief in the presence of a gender identity which exists innately and separately from physical sex, rather than being related to any observable behaviours or physical traits.

That is a policy analysts way of saying that everyone is making it up as they go along.

SNP justice minister Humza Yousaf is effectively adopting a Potter Stewart test for what constitutes stirring up hatred on the basis of transgender identity. The approach seems to be in essence that people (individuals? the police? prosecutors? the courts? juries?) will know it when they see it, MBM concludes. The Hate Crime Bill is legislated vagueness with a seven-year prison sentence attached.

Imprecision is not the cardinal sin of this Bill. MBM warns of a substantial chilling effect on freedom of expression and no wonder. To be prosecuted, a person will not even have to intend to stir up hatred against a group which the law itself cannot define. It will be enough that his behaviour or communications are considered threatening or abusive and that a court deems it likely that hatred will be stirred up. If this cascade of caprice becomes law some, perhaps many, holders of controversial or dissenting views will conclude that it is safer to simply shut up than risk arrest, prosecution and even imprisonment.

Ever since the Scottish Governments campaign to legislate self-identification stalled, gender-critical feminists have been on alert for attempts to introduce these changes by the back door. The Hate Crime Bill gets closer than any other measure to jimmying the lock. If it passes as drafted, the potential chilling effects on debate about gender and identity will be such that some aspects of self-identification are achieved by default. Who will dare write or say that transwomen are not women when it could bring, at the very least, a visit to your home or workplace by police? Who will insist that sex-reserved spaces be reserved on the basis of sex when there are activists out there just waiting to experience your policy as threatening or abusive? Who will object to girls who are boyish or attracted to members of the same sex being told they are trans when a fellow teacher or medic or social worker might pick up the phone and report your heresy as hate speech?

No people can consent to be governed by such an insidious and repressive law and still be counted among the freedom-valuing nations of the world. I tend to think that, rather than being motivated by conscious contempt for liberty, Humza Yousaf is so enraptured by the ascendant ideology of coercive progressivism that he cannot see what an almighty shoeing his Bill gives to the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience. Im not sure his intentions are worth a jot, though, when the consequences are so destructive. Yousaf is a Scottish nationalist but while he might believe in independence, he has no regard for freedom.

View original post here:

Scotland's Hate Crime Bill would have a chilling effect on free speech - Spectator.co.uk

Emmy Award-winning comedienne Judy Gold is now appearing at the Crown and Anchor in Provincetown. She has written a funny and compelling new book "Yes, I Can Say That" which details her musings about freedom of speech from the perspective of the comic. In the books forward, she writes, Its terrifying out there right now for stand-ups. The fear of backlash and inciting microaggression from the audience members by uttering a politically incorrect joke that offends is always present in the mind of the standup before, during and after a performance, she says.

This kind of scrutiny from the easily-offended, is not only coming from the right politically, but also those leaning left, Gold maintains. Asshe proceeds with her manifesto on a performers right to free speech, she interweaves some hilarious anecdotes and jokes that have arisen in her performing life and in the performing life of other comedians as well.

Gold talks about stereotypes, and how were all products of our history and legacy. We can laugh at them for the spark of truth they contain, and challenge them when theyve been unfairly assigned or used to denigrate," she says. "One of the best ways to challenge these long-held false beliefs is with comedy. She then gives examples of how various comedians with a host of ethnic backgrounds have handled issues centered around this kind of stereotype attribution.

But the best comedy lives on the edge of whats acceptable, Gold writes, and thats where audiences can either laugh at the joke being delivered or choose to feel offended. Sometimes feelings of offense get mixed with anger and an audience member decides to leave the show. It is simply an individuals natural impulse to protect themselves from unpleasantness that causes such action. As Gold maintains though, Jokes are nourished by tension; laughter is a release.

Golds book is also part-history, chronicling the great comics who have fought for freedom of speech, and giving homage to these comics fight against censorship. Shetackles the issue of the Cancel Culture, the phenomenon of promoting the canceling or the rejection of an individual whose actions remarks, or ideologies others consider to be offensive or problematic.

She delivers a blistering attack on Donald Trump, but the attack constitutes a valid argument. Here Gold quotes the comedian Jon Stewart, I dont understand why in this country we try to hold comedians to a higher standard we do not hold leaders to.

Gold delivers a wonderful tribute to her idol, Joan Rivers, who she says was The funniest and most fearless of women. Readers learn a great deal about Rivers career, her methods as comedienne, and her pioneering efforts to promote women in the field of comedy. Rivers jokes, interspersed throughout Golds retelling, are hilarious.

Political correctness, according to Gold, is a virus that is killing great stand-up comedy, and such a death hurts us all. Protocols defining political correctness were established to avoid insulting marginalized groups of people. Gold warns her fellow comedians that they should refrain from maliciously offending people, and be willing to laugh at themselves. A cardinal rule should be, always endeavor to gain the trust of the audience.

To us the audience, Gold challenges us to stop taking ourselves so seriously. The most important thing of all? Laugh! Let go and laugh!

Read more here:

BOOK REVIEW: Yes, I Can Say That is Judy Golds take on freedom of speech - Wicked Local Provincetown

Americans Are Waking Up To The Destruction Of First Amendment Rights

Many Americans realize that the radical political mandates to wear face masks and practice social distancing areegregious violations of the First Amendment. A large chunk of Americans simply cannot wear face masks because of pre-existing health conditions. Others believe that face masks pose a serious risk to their health, and do not believe the government has any authority to force such harm upon them.

More importantly, face masks and social distancing grossly impede our right to Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly.

Now is the time to draw the line in the sand and say NO MORE!

The Department of Justice recently issued a Statement of Interest brief to support a church's lawsuit against a city for Constitution overreach. The brief stated,

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.(Download here)

Apparently, government officials missed the part about "restrain government action." (But now, that is where YOU come in...)

If you are fed up with government overreach, draconian mandates to muzzle your voice and First Amendment rights and putting your own health at risk, then please stand with us by joining below. There is no charge to join, but you can certainly support us by donating.

After you join below, you will be directed to a donate page to consider receiving a card and lanyard as pictured below. This is OPTIONAL, but if you feel strongly that you must make a statement in your community, this is the card to display around your neck!

CFFS Members have reported very good results from wearing this card. Steve from Idaho City wrote,

"Can I get another badge/lanyard that you sent to us? They are coming down on us heavy with the mandatory mask thing in our area. My wife has used the badge/lanyard you sent us multiple times, and it works to ward off the tyrannists"

Many merchants and organizations will "honor" your wishes and not require you to wear a mask. For all who would dispute your rights, the First Amendment is conveniently printed on the reverse side, giving you an opportunity to educate them on THEIR Constitutional rights as well.

Please tell a friend. Bring them here. Work with them in your local community. Don't give in and don't give up!

The first step in getting started is to put yourself on record. Not everyone volunteers, but some will. Not everyone donates, but some can. Not everyone can reach thousands, but everyone can reach someone. We need each other because only together can we do great things. There is no time to wait, so please join us today! Note: CFFS is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.

If you are already a CFFS member and you want more cards now, please click on the DONATE button in the right column!

See original here:

Citizens for Free Speech

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is being invited to invalidate the entire field of hostile environment harassment law. One cannot confidently predict that the invitation will be declined. If the plaintiff in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University prevails, teachers at public colleges will have a constitutional right to subject their students to bigoted slurs. Much of anti-discrimination law would be deemed unconstitutional.

Nicholas Meriwether teaches philosophy at Shawnee State University, a public university in Ohio. He refused to address a transgender student by the students preferred pronouns. Instead, while addressing all other students as Mr. or Ms., he referred to the student by last name only. When disciplined for discrimination, he sued the school, claiming that his free speech rights were violated.

His complaint is full of allegations about compelled speech. The nondiscrimination policies compel Dr. Meriwether to communicate messages about gender identity that he does not hold, that he does not wish to communicate, and that conflict with (and for him to violate) his religious beliefs. He is being punished for refusing to communicate a University-mandated ideological message regarding gender identity.

Meriwethers Sixth Circuit brief declares that the school gave him no way to speak without endorsing philosophies that he believes are false and violating his religious beliefs. . . . To call a man a woman, he must endorse metaphysical positions he believes are false. University officials are compelling him to communicate their ideas about sex and gender as his own.

All this is pretty silly stuff. Government employees do not get to say whatever they want. The clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles may not make political speeches to those who apply for licenses. The Supreme Courts Pickering test holds that the speech of public employees always must be balanced against the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs. The rights of public employees to speak while on the job were even further narrowed in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that free speech does not apply to speech that is part of ones official duties. So, this is an easy case. Rules against discrimination obviously promote the delivery of educational services.

Even though the school was entitled to ignore Meriwethers claim, it tried to be nice. It suggested that he could refer to all students by first or last names only, without using gendered pronouns for any of them.That would have treated all students equally, and it would not have required him to say anything he did not believe. Why would he not do that?

Its sometimes tricky, but hardly impossible, for conservative Christians and LGBT people to live together in peace and mutual respect. Often, when they come into conflict, it is possible to put together a solution that makes room for everyone. Thats what the school tried to do. But this wont work if someone is spoiling for a fight and wont take yes for an answer.

His district court complaint declares: Dr. Meriwether refers to students in this fashion to foster an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect that is befitting the college classroom. Dr. Meriwether believes that this formal manner of addressing students helps them view the academic enterprise as a serious, weighty endeavor. Of course, the seriousness and weightiness of honorifics were not available to the transgender student. Meriwether is insisting on his right to single out the transgender student and treat her worse than all other students.

Meriwether is essentially alleging that his academic freedom, or perhaps his freedom from compelled speech (he offers lots of different free speech formulations), means that he has a First Amendment right to say anything he wants in his classroom. He also offers a Free Exercise argument, that he gets to say whatever is consistent with his religious beliefs. If these claims are accepted, then teachers have an unlimited right to verbally mistreat students.

His arguments are so extravagant that they shouldnt be worthy of notice. But lately we have seen a hypertrophy of First Amendment claims. In the 2018 case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, Justice Thomas came close to saying that any action with communicative significance is protected by free speech, and Justice Gorsuch suggested that any law that penalizes religiously motivated conduct can be characterized as religious discrimination. Both that case and this one were litigated by Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom (which posts some of the cases documents here), and those justices adopted her claims. The claims themselves would make nonsense of the law.

But Waggoner is a capable lawyer who knows her court. I am confident that this extraordinarily broad understanding is not now the law, and that the Sixth Circuit thus must reject it. I cant be confident that she wont persuade the Supreme Court, if the case gets that far.

Andrew Koppelman is a professor of law at Northwestern University and author of the recently published "Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty? The Unnecessary Conflict." Follow him on Twitter@AndrewKoppelman.

More:

Free speech gone wild: The Meriwether case | TheHill - The Hill