Australian comedian Hannah Gadsby became a global star with her Netflix special Nanette. Its a remarkable piece of work, and it does what great art is supposed to do: give you a sense, however fleeting, of what it is like to live inside another humans experience. Gadsbys new special, Douglas, takes that a step further: It explores her autism diagnosis and gives you a sense of what it is like to experience the world through another persons mind.

The first half of my episode with Gadsby is about her experience moving through the world as a neurodiverse person. Gadsby didnt receive her autism diagnosis until she was almost 40 years old, after decades of struggling to navigate systems, institutions, and norms that werent built for people like her. Her story of how she got to comedy and how close she was to simply falling off the map is searing, and it helped me see some of the capabilities and social conventions I take for granted in a new light. As in her shows, Gadsby, here, renders an experience few of us have had emotionally legible. Its a powerful conversation.

Then we turn to the topics of free speech, safety, and cancel culture. For years, comedy has been undergoing many of the very same debates that have recently become front and center in the journalism world, and Gadsby has done some of the most powerful thinking Ive heard on these issues. We discuss what it means for people in power to take responsibility for their speech, how to navigate the complex relationship between creator and audience members, why Twitter is a bullying pulpit, the role of recording technology, and the new skills those of us privileged with a platform are going to need to develop.

This is one of those conversations Ive been thinking about since I had it. Dont miss it.

You can listen to our discussion by streaming it here, or by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you get your podcasts.

Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we werent sure how it would go. Today, were humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. Thats never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone wont let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.

More here:

Hannah Gadsby on comedy, free speech, and living with autism - Vox.com

UNITED STATES - JULY 23: Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives in the Capitol for a vote on Thursday, ... [+] July 23, 2020. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

It is a sad irony that freedom of speech is under threat on college campuses. From Galileo onward, history is replete with examples of what happens when the inquiry that leads to discovery is derailed. For 25 years, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which I serve, has advocated before legislatures and boards of trustees for the protection of campus free speech. Most recently, I was a signatory to the Philadelphia Statement on Civil Discourse. It is an ongoing battle.

Last week, Senator Tom Cotton, along with fellow Senators Mitch McConnell, Kelly Loeffler, and Kevin Cramer, introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act (CAFSRA) as a long-needed remedy. The bill addresses the failure of so many American institutions of higher learning to ensure a campus that protects rather than obstructs what Yales C. Vann Woodward Report of 1975 called the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. If passed, CAFSRA will apply the Big Stick of federal intervention to public institutions that fail to honor the First Amendment. Private schools that violate their own stated free speech policies would also be subject to severe sanctions.

The initiative is timely, and its goals are impeccably virtuous. But it is a long way from a bills introduction to the final form of its passage, and this might be a good time to consider the context, collateral effects, and contingencies of its application.

The incentive for institutions to comply with the CAFSRA is enormous. The Big Stick that the bill proposes is rendering a noncompliant institution ineligible for federal funding. For many colleges and universities, this would mean insolvency and demise.

For such high stakes, there must be bright lines to guide behavior, and therein the bill encounters some significant challenges. Some provisions, such as the withholding of federal funds from public institutions that maintain policies in violation of the First Amendment, are unquestionably overdue: The persistence of unconstitutional speech codes is a disgrace that has long corrupted campus culture. Other provisions are less clear.

Inevitably, high-spirited college students will test the boundaries of the expressive activities protected by the law in the generally accessible outdoor area on which the bill places significant focus. The provisions of the proposed legislation as written may inadvertently provide shelter and legal protection for some programs that few would deem appropriate for public spaces. It is not unreasonable to ask whether the proposed legislation would extend federal protection, for example, to an outdoor drama or performance art utilizing sex toys, as expressive activity. Anyone who has worked on a college campus will know that this scenario is not at all beyond likelihood. Given that an adverse finding would jeopardize its access to federal funding, would the college administration dare to demand that such events not take place in a generally accessible outdoor area that members of the public with young children might frequent? Would this bill make such matters an occasion for litigation, rather than simply finding reasonable accommodations for the avant-garde that are not in the faces of the general public?

The proposed legislation states that the Secretary of Education will enforce the new law, and that, of course, means possibly promulgating negotiated rules to define further the reach of the legislation. There will soon be a presidential election, and it may be that the new Secretary of Education might determine, for example, that there is a compelling government interest in discouraging speech deemed hostile to protected minorities. In other words, the new legislation could be heavy on penalties but less effective than hoped in protecting viewpoint diversity. While it is purely logical that the federal government exercise its interest in ensuring that the colleges and universities that accept public money abide by the First Amendment (or, in the case of private institutions, their own stated policies on free speech), doing that fairly and effectively is no small challenge.

Ultimately, top down efforts at cultural change are likely to be infeasible and, even at their best, cannot be fully effective. What is crucial for the college students who will join the workforce is that they internalize the values of debate, discussion, and respectful disagreement. Seventy-four colleges and universities to date have adopted the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression, the gold standard for an institutional commitment to academic freedom, or a similar pledge to the free exchange of ideas. It is a disgrace that so few institutions have stepped forward. Every faculty assembly and every board of trustees at every one of Americas degree-granting colleges and universities, all 4,360+ of them, should by now have done so. It ranks up there with clean air and water on campus. Arguably, some kind of legislative kick is appropriate to get American higher education seriously to foster and protect free speech. The challenge is how to aim it.

South Dakotas lightly prescriptive intellectual diversity bill, H.B. 1087, is a model worth considering. (Disclosure, my employer, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, gave testimony supporting this bill.) Passed in 2019, the bill requires all of the states public universities to make intellectual diversity an institutional priority and to report on their progress, whether it be in the form of hiring faculty with varying viewpoints or bringing unconventional speakers to campus. The magic of the bill is that it respects institutional autonomy in educational decisions. So far, it has met with a remarkably high level of acceptance from the state Board of Regents.

In its austere majesty, the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution does not welcome Congress into such matters, and when congressional intervention is necessary, it must happen with an abundance of circumspection and caution.

Bravo to Senator Cotton and his cosponsors for taking on the challenge. There is significant work ahead to find just the right formula for success. What might be most fruitful is legislation that provides surgically targeted disincentives for institutions to discourage free speech and financial incentives for positive programming to create a culture in which the free exchange of ideas flourishes and becomes a lifelong habit for young American citizens.

Follow this link:

Can The Feds Protect Campus Free Speech? - Forbes

Written by Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore | Updated: August 17, 2020 9:14:55 amIt is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. (Reuters)

In George Orwells 1984, it was a thoughtcrime to actually disagree with the viewpoints established by Big Brother. The latest manifestation of this Orwellian concept is the Left-Congress cabals outrage over a Western media houses hit-job on Facebook, an already Left-Congress-leaning platform. Truth, as in the case of 1984, is a casualty. Merely scratching the surface reveals how this storm in a teacup is merely an exercise to browbeat Facebook for allowing certain opinions to even exist.

It is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. The Singapore Parliamentary hearings in this context have become rather famous representatives of Facebook were pulled up for their smug attitude. In its parent country, the United States, a Senate hearing had laid bare the hoax of neutrality by cornering Facebook on using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, particularly conservative viewpoints. In India, too, we have seen examples of Facebook actually filtering out non-Left and non-Congress viewpoints through manufactured labels of fake news. They are even accused of using shadow banning algorithms.

What the Left wants is not control over hate speech but unfettered freedom of hate speech to its ideologically-aligned members. That is why you would hear Mark Zuckerberg quote Kapil Mishra but say nothing on Sonia Gandhi who exhorted people in Delhi to do aar paar ki ladai (prepare for the final battle). There are millions of posts mocking Hindu gods and abusing right-of-centre leaders. But Facebooks advanced algorithms and community standards fail to catch them. However, unsuspecting common people running pro-right-of-centre pages are suspended with no right to appeal.

What the Left wants is not diversity in organisational culture. It wants full compliance. Hence, it does not suffice for them if most hirings in Facebook India come from Left-Congress background. There are examples of current and former Facebook executives with links to the former government and opposition parties, and some of them have been openly critical of the prime minister as well. To accuse them of being pro-BJP is laughable.

Nor does it bother the gatekeepers that the Congress party was caught hand-in-glove with Cambridge Analytica, an infamous big-data-enabled democracy manipulator that has interfered in several countries electoral processes and has used Facebook as its weapon. They actually had the Congress hand symbol in their office but this controversy was silently buried. Imagine the uproar if the same linkage had been found with a BJP members son-in-laws fathers nephews brothers son.

The problem, however, is much larger, and intellectually rooted in the fake post-truth world phenomenon bandied about by a bunch of elitists afraid to lose their power of labelling views as thoughtcrimes. Scared of being shown the mirror of reality, an entire cabal has decided to rally their comrades and undertake hit jobs on those who do not fully comply with their dictums.

Sadly, the real story has been missed in the entire discussion the actual scam by Facebook that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. Funding and validating eminent journalists belonging to the pro-Left cabal and empowering them to become the arbiters of truth on Facebook is the game, whereas anything that goes against their views and opinions is deemed fake. Out-of-job Left-leaning journalists and their views count as gospel truth to the gatekeepers, but the Prime Ministers speech on Independence Day got labelled as fake news. Is it just a coincidence that the battery of Facebook certified eminent fact-checkers havent yet been able to fact-check any of Rahul Gandhis claims?

It is surprising but not shocking to note that Facebook even allowed paid promotion of posts using morphed pictures of PM Modi with a Pakistan flag, whereas pages that allow opposing viewpoints often lose their monetisation for merely stating facts.

After the decline of the grip of mainstream media as the sole arbiter of truth, the battle for narratives has moved to social media. Originally, these were not platforms that the Left-Congress controlled, because there were no gates or gatekeepers. However, since then, a planned campaign has taken over these platforms too.

This latest round of manufactured outrage should be seen as the Lefts internecine warfare to control an already-Congress and Left-leaning platform and punish them for even the most minor of thoughtcrimes allowing alternative viewpoints. This is yet another attempt to regain a monopoly over narratives and disenfranchising alternate versions. Armed with the power of an organised cabal, the gatekeepers believe that they can continue to perpetuate the same one-sided monopoly.

The more social media platforms fall to tendentious voices from the Left and become echo chambers, the more they will lose their credibility. We should all stand up and resist this organised assault by the Left-Congress ecosystem on our fundamental right to exercise our free speech within the boundaries set by Indian law.

The writer is a former Minister of State of Information and Broadcasting (2018-19) and a BJP MP

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

More here:

Facebook is in the dock; we need to resist Left-Congress assault on free speech - The Indian Express

Forty-five words.

Throughout our history, United States citizens have debated 45 words that have become the bedrock on which our culture stands: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the death of George Floyd, I have spent an enormous amount of time reflecting on what has occurred and continues to occur in our country. What originated in Minneapolis has brought forth a level of dialogue around not only racism, but also our First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

I did what any lifelong learner would do I researched it and refreshed my knowledge on those 45 words that are imprinted on Americans.

Did you know that the First Amendment was actually supposed to be the Third Amendment? The original first and second amendments were defeated at the time. The original first amendment dealt with how members of the House of Representatives would be assigned to the states a measure that would have resulted in more than 6,000 members of the House of Representatives. The original second amendment? It addressed Congressional pay (it was later approved as the 27th Amendment 203 years later).

And then the third became the first. How fortuitous it was to have the first two amendments fail so that the third would become the first. The amendment for which the United States is known around the world and arguably has influenced other nations became first through fate.

While our courts have decided that some speech is protected and some not (fighting words, child pornography, true threats, etc.), it is important to remember that we should not necessarily differentiate who is entitled to free speech and assembly and who is not.

The 45 words of the First Amendment encapsulate the liberty we cherish. You cannot be supporters of freedom of speech and assembly of only ideas with which you agree and only people with whom you agree.

The bottom line is this: Our First Amendment rights are fundamental to the fabric of our nation. Whether or not we agree with the speech or demonstration, we have been afforded this right by our founding fathers.

Our ability to contribute to the marketplace of ideas whether or not we like or agree with those ideas and those who share them is what makes our country an incomparable place to live, work and play.

Randy Boyd is the president of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

Follow this link:

Our First Amendment shows world meaning of free speech - The Connection

As 2019s biggest political documentary at the box office, No Safe Spaces, releases to digital platforms and DVD, the films co-stars have announced a historic online free speech event, #CancelCon, which will address todays increasingly hostile environment where cancel culture and the U.S. Constitution clash.

People are being shut down or canceled at an increasingly alarming rate for simply wanting to speak their mind, said Dennis Prager. The Constitution is in jeopardy and our nation stands on the brink.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report will be hosting the event and will be joined by No Safe Spaces co-stars Dennis Prager, Adam Carolla, the Daily Wires Ben Shapiro, and others who will share an in-depth analysis of the current anti-free speech cancel culture phenomenon. Cancel culture has made America uglier and less interesting. Its time to cancel it, adds Ben Shapiro.

Young Americas Foundation (YAF) is co-sponsoring this free event, simulcasting live on YouTube, Facebook, and http://www.NoSafeSpaces.com at 8:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, September 17Constitution Day. YAFs extensive nationwide network of student groups and campus activists will participate in the online program throughout the evening.

The very thesis of No Safe Spaceswhat happens on campus will not stay on campusis playing out in front of our eyes, noted Carolla. Its time to flex the muscle of resistance and refuse to be bullied.

If we lose the right to free speech, we lose everything, noted Young Americas Foundation President Ron Robinson. YAF has stood up for and defended the First Amendment on and off campus throughout our 60-year history. We are thrilled to partner with No Safe Spaces to shed more light on this important issue.

No Safe Spaces earned $1.3m at the box office and was the highest-rated film of 2019 as ranked by the Rotten Tomatoes audience score.

Related Link

CancelCon Takes on Greatest Threat to Free Speech in American History, Newsweek, August 17, 2020.

No Safe Spaces was partially funded by CRCs Dangerous Documentaries.

Go here to see the original:

#CancelCon to Explore Cancel Culture and the Threats to Free Speech - Capital Research Center

Some folks who have butted heads with social-media giants like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube over politically incorrect things they have said or written, and who have battled college administrators for their right to say uncomfortable things on a college campus, are banding together for something dubbed CancelCon.

Organizers are billing their digital convention as "The biggest free speech event of the year." Speakers include Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla, all of whom appear in a movie about the so-called "cancel culture" at universities called No Safe Spaces, a co-sponsor of the event.

Many of the participants have been outspoken on the topic of free speech, including some who have testified at congressional hearings.

"I speak on dozens of college campuses every year, so I have some first-hand experience with the anti-First Amendment activities. I've encountered anti-free speech measures, administrative cowardice, even physical violence," Shapiro told members of Congress in 2017.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

At that same hearing three years ago, Carolla spoke sarcastically about "white privilege" and college kids who "grew up dipped in Purell," making a couple of prescient jokes considering the Black Lives Matter protesting and constant hand-washing amid the coronavirus pandemic that have marked 2020.

Now, they are taking their acts to CancelCon, to be streamed online September 17 and co-sponsored by Young America's Foundation, one of the nation's largest organizations for conservative youth.

Organizers say it is the first in what they hope will be an annual event "for as long as the cancel culture exists," as one insider put it. The hope is that in the post-pandemic future it would be a physical convention, much like PolitiCon, which was last held in October in Nashville, Tennessee, and included appearances by former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazille, former FBI Director James Comey and conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Tomi Lahren.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

"People are being shut down or 'canceled' at an increasingly alarming rate for simply wanting to speak their mind," Prager told Newsweek. "We are living through the greatest threat to free speech in American history. Free Speech was the one thing virtually every American agreed on. That this is changing is a far greater threat to America's future than any foreign enemy."

The talk-show host's PragerU, consisting of dozens of five-minute educational videos, has been at war for years with YouTube, which deems some of the content harmful to children and therefore restricts much of it in the same way it does pornography.

One of PragerU's videos consists of Prager testifying to lawmakers last year when he told Sen. Ted Cruz that YouTube restricted a video about the Ten Commandments because it speaks of murder. "I will appeal to Google by re-releasing it as the Nine Commandments," Prager quipped at the hearing.

While Prager and Shapiro are conservative and Carolla is libertarian, Rubin, who was once part of the left-leaning Young Turks Network, describes himself as a "classical liberal," though his detractors allegedly seeking to "cancel" him label him far right and accuse him of hobnobbing with alleged white nationalists.

Ironically, the event will be featured on some of the platforms the four have battled with, including Facebook and YouTube, and it will include clips of No Safe Spaces, which was the top political documentary at the box office in 2019 and in March became the first film to be digitally distributed by Salem Media Group, the leader in conservative talk radio. Mill Street Entertainment releases the film on DVD and various streaming services on Sept. 15.

"The very thesis of No Safe Spaces 'what happens on campus will not stay on campus' is playing out in front of our very eyes," Carolla told Newsweek. "It's time to flex the muscle of resistance and refuse to be bullied."

Continue reading here:

CancelCon Takes on 'Greatest Threat to Free Speech in American History' - Newsweek

Can the US restore manufacturing jobs before Trump breaks off all sensible business and imports from China? Why has our manufacturing all gone offshore? It is all about subsidies and tariffs.

Rob E. Scott joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the possibilities of reversing the decline in manufacturing.

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

China Donald Trump Economy Manufacturing Rob E. Scott The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Trade United States

See the original post here:

Is This Our Last Chance To Return Manufacturing Jobs To The US? - Free Speech TV

In this clip from #TheRandiRhodesShow, Randi discusses the latest anti-Trump ad from #thelincolnproject, the new birtherism, Trump lies, and more!

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplifies free speech.

Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FST

Birther Movement Donald Trump Lincoln Project Randi Rhodes The Randi Rhodes Show

Read more:

The Reviews Are In... - Free Speech TV

Americans are coming together August 17-20. Be a part of it. Tune in to the 2020 Democratic National Convention from 9-11pm ET each night.

Watch Live at freespeech.org/watch-live

The theme of Monday's program isWe the People.America is facing a series of monumental challengesas the COVID-19 pandemic continues its rampage, tens of millions of people are out of work, and our nation confronts a legacy of racial injustice that has marginalized too many. But as we have learned throughout our history, when we stand united, we can overcome anything.

Tonight the nation will hear from the many Americans who are rising up to take on these three crises, and who will join Joe Biden in building back better and moving this country forward. With Joe Biden as president, we the people will mean all the people.

Highlights from tonights program are listed below, with additional special guests slated to join throughout the evening:

WE THE PEOPLE

IntroductionEva LongoriaAmerican actress

We the People Gavel In

Everyday Americans will read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, beforeConvention Chair and The Honorable Bennie Thompsonofficially gavels in the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Call to OrderThe Honorable Bennie ThompsonPermanent Chair of the 2020 Democratic National ConventionMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi

Pledge of Allegiance

National AnthemA multicultural choir performing virtually with singers representing all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Cheyenne Nation and five territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.

InvocationReverend Gabriel SalgueroPresident of the National Latino Evangelical CoalitionCo-lead pastor of The Lambs Church in New York, New York

RemarksThe Honorable Gwen MooreSergeant-at-Arms of the 2020 Democratic National ConventionMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Wisconsin

WE THE PEOPLE DEMANDING RACIAL JUSTICE

RemarksThe Honorable Muriel BowserMayor of Washington, D.C.

PerformanceLeon BridgesAmerican singer

The Path Forward: A Conversation with Vice President Biden on Racial JusticeVice President Biden engages with, and listens to,social justice activist Jamira Burley, Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, NAACP President Derrick Johnson, andauthor Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner,about how America can move forward towards equality, fairness, and justice for all.

RemarksThe Honorable James ClyburnHouse Democratic WhipMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina

WE THE PEOPLE HELPING EACH OTHER THROUGH COVID-19

RemarksThe Honorable Andrew CuomoGovernor of the State of New York

RemarksKristin UrquizaA woman whose father lost his life to COVID-19.

A Conversation with Healthcare Workers on the Front LinesA conversation with a doctor, paramedic, and two nurses on the front lines of this pandemic about what theyve endured, and whats at stake in this election for Americas essential medical workers.

Introduction of PerformerThe Honorable Sara GideonSpeaker of the Maine House of Representatives

PerformanceMaggie RogersAmerican singer-songwriter

RemarksThe Honorable Gretchen WhitmerGovernor of the State of Michigan

WE THE PEOPLE PUTTING COUNTRY OVER PARTY

RemarksThe Honorable Christine WhitmanFormer Governor of New Jersey

Meg WhitmanFormer CEO of Hewlett Packard

The Honorable Susan MolinariFormer Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York

RemarksThe Honorable John KasichFormer Governor of the State of Ohio

RemarksThe Honorable Doug JonesUnited States Senator, Alabama

RemarksThe Honorable Catherine Cortez MastoUnited States Senator, Nevada

RemarksThe Honorable Amy KlobucharUnited States Senator, Minnesota

United We StandFormer 2020 Democratic candidates for president of the United States will come together once again to talk about why they ran, what theyre fighting for, and why they believe Joe Biden will bring the nation together, move the nation out of crisis and chaos, and move us forward featuringVice Presidential Nominee and Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Cory Booker, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Governor Jay Inslee, Senator Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Representative Seth Moulton, Former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke, Tom Steyer,andAndrew Yang.

WE THE PEOPLE RECOVERING

RemarksThe Honorable Cedric RichmondMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Louisiana

RemarksThe Honorable Bernie SandersUnited States Senator, Vermont

WE THE PEOPLE RISE

Keynote RemarksMichelle ObamaFormer First Lady of the United States

PerformanceBilly Porter and Steven StillsAmerican singer-songwriters

BenedictionReverend Dr. Jerry Young18th President of the National Baptist Convention, USA

Democratic Democratic National Convention DNC Free Speech TV

See more here:

The Tune Into Right Here To Watch Night 1 Of The Democratic National Convention - Free Speech TV

If you read the coverage online or watch the cable networks, the extremist movement known as antifa is either the new Al Qaeda or the new Big Foot. President Trump wants to have antifa classified as a terrorist organization, while various Democrats insist it is simply a conservative phantom. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler even insisted that violence by antifa is a myth and called the accounts imaginary.

While I oppose designating antifa as a terrorist organization, its existence is certainly not a myth. Indeed, it may be the most successful movement against free speech in modern history. However, its structure and tactics avoid easy detection, which is why so many people claim the group is an apparition. It is true that whenever such spontaneous and concentrated violence erupts, many people tend to believe it is antifa.

Antifa is often the culprit on university campuses. In the film The Usual Suspects, the character Virgil described the invisible villain Keyser Soze. He is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. Antifa does exist and the last few weeks demonstrate how skilled it is as the Keyser Soze of social unrest in America.

Antifa was founded on a rejection of formal structures and leaders. Many associated groups are part of Anti-Racist Action and a loose coordinating organization known as the Torch Network. This lack of structure not only appeals to the anarchist elements for the movement but serves to evade both law enforcement and legal challenges. The threat of antifa is not its role in civil unrest but its activities attacking free speech.

Both far left and far right groups have been identified in riots in various cities. These extremist groups use social media and the internet to sow disorder, hide their identities, and frame other groups for their activities. Notably in the last week, Richmond police identified both antifa and the Boogaloo Boys in violent protests in that city. It is part of what Attorney General William Barr refers to as the witches brew of violent groups on both sides such as antifa and some other similar groups.

Antifa members have been arrested and involved in violence in the cities. The president of the Portland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wrote in the Washington Post to denounce the white spectacle of the recent violence. He asked, What are antifa and other leftist agitators achieving for the cause of black equality?

The answer is that antifa is not an ally to Black Lives Matter. It is all about revolutionary change and using demonstrations to trigger greater social unrest. It follows the same purpose mistakenly spoken by former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley following those riots during the Democratic National Convention in 1968, The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder. Antifa causes such violence.

Antifa has found allies while the movement has grown. It primarily targets conservatives and the free speech community, so it has not been a major concern of liberals. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said antifa would strike fear in the heart of Trump. This was after antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.

That fact is that antifa works to strike fear not in the heart of Trump but in the heart of anyone who will oppose the movement. The antifa handbook states how the group has rejected the idea of free speech and has spent years organizing protests to prevent opposing views from getting heard. That practice has been adopted by other groups as well. Antifa violence can give colleges or politicians cover for barring conservative speakers. Nancy Pelosi has called for the revocation of a permit for a conservative prayer group viewed as a security matter in San Francisco.

George Washington University student Jason Charter has been charged as the alleged ringleader of efforts to take down statues across the capital. Charter has been an active antifa member on campus for years. Following his arrest, he claimed the movement is winning. It is winning partly since local officials order police to stand down or drop criminal charges to avoid conflict. But it is winning mostly since people remain silent.

Silence hurts free speech. Antifa knows that. It is the silence of professors who watch as their colleagues are harassed, investigated, or threatened. It is the silence of students who watch as others are attacked for dissenting ideas. It is the silence of reporters who watch as other journalists are fired or forcibly retired for challenging orthodox views. Finally, it is the silence of those politicians who dismiss the destruction of property as a case, in the words of Pelosi, that people will do what people will do.

Antifa will do a great deal of damage if allowed. It is why, for academics and writers, its existence is frightening. As Virgil explained, Keyser Soze became the spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. Antifa has achieved the agenda against free speech to a degree that even critics like me never imagined possible. It simply took inaction from our government and silence from our citizens. Threats against free speech are reaching a critical mass in our schools and on our streets. We can either take action or remain passive bystanders to what inevitably comes next.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University who will testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee on antifa and the movement against free speech in America.

The rest is here:

Is antifa the greatest movement against free speech in America? | TheHill - The Hill

About 18 months ago, I attended a debate at Policy Exchange, the think tank founded by Nick Boles, Francis Maude and Archie Norman, on whether there was a free speech crisis at British universities. One panellist, Professor Jon Wilson of Kings College London, vigorously denied that any such problem existed. Various people pointed to examples of right-of-centre academics being no-platformed Charles Murray, Amy Wax, Linda Gottfredson but that was scarcely conclusive. It was anecdotal evidence, not hard data.

The same cannot be said any more. This week, Policy Exchange published a paper by three academics Remi Adekoya, Eric Kaufmann and Tom Simpson which proves beyond reasonable doubt that free speech is in trouble in the higher-education sector. They commissioned a YouGov survey involving a randomly-collected sample of more than 800 professors and lecturers, some working, some retired, who represented the 217,000 academic staff in British universities in 2018-9. Surveys of academics have been done before, some involving larger sample sizes, but none as rigorous as this.

Their findings wont surprise anyone familiar with the sector. For instance, 75 per cent of UK academics voted for left-of-centre parties in the 2017 and 2019 elections, compared with less than 20 per cent who voted right-of-centre. Just over half said they would feel comfortable sitting next to a Leave supporter at lunch, while only 37 per cent said they would risk sharing a table with a dissenter from trans orthodoxy. Among the small minority of academics who identify as right or fairly right, 32 per cent have refrained from airing their views in front of colleagues.

The authors are careful not to accuse left-wing academics of being more intolerant than right-wing ones and, indeed, those who identified as right-of-centre were, for the most part, just as hostile towards their ideological opponents. Fifty per cent of those on the right said they would discriminate in favour of a Leave voter over a Jeremy Corbyn supporter in a job interview. But because academics on the left outnumber those on the right by almost four to one, right-of-centre lecturers and professors inevitably face far more discrimination. This has a chilling effect on free speech because conservative academics have to conceal their views and avoid challenging progressive norms if they want successful careers.

Having identified the problem, the authors propose a solution: an Academic Freedom Bill. This would create a Director for Academic Freedom as a member of the senior team at the Office for Students, the English universities regulator, who would report directly to the board and be appointed by the Education Secretary. His or her role would be to ensure higher-education providers honour their professed commitment to free speech. The Bill would also include measures to strengthen this commitment, by stipulating that universities have a direct duty to protect academic freedom and that if they breach it they would be liable for damages. In addition, the Bill would make it explicit in law that higher-education providers cant invoke their public sector equality duty or the harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to disregard their obligation to uphold free speech.

That last point is important since the Equality Act is often cited by administrators as something that has to be balanced against academic freedom. For example, Stephen Toope, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, referred to the need to ensure Muslim students didnt feel personally attacked when defending the divinity facultys decision to rescind its offer of a visiting fellowship to Jordan Peterson after a photograph emerged of him standing next to a fan wearing a Im a proud Islamophobe T-shirt.

As the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, Im at the forefront of trying to defend academic freedom and if this Bill became law it would undoubtedly make my job easier. But will the government take any notice? For once, Im reasonably optimistic. Not only was there a line in the Conservative manifesto about doing more to protect free speech in universities, but the Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, recently said that higher-education providers would have to demonstrate that theyre upholding academic freedom as a condition of receiving bailout money. This could be one of those rare instances in which a policy proposal by a think tank quickly finds its way on to the statute books.

Excerpt from:

The proof that free speech in universities is in peril - Spectator.co.uk

Auburn University is choosing to align with conservative values over their usual rigid defense of freedom of speech. On Wednesday, July 23, Dr. Jesse Goldberg, a new lecturer at Auburn University tweeted some choice words about police brutality:

"F*ck every single cop, he wrote. Every single one. The only ethical choice for any cop to make at this point is to refuse to do their job and quit. The police do not protect people. They protect capital. They are instruments of violence on behalf of capital."

To which Auburn University official Brian Keeter responded,

"We find Mr. Goldbergs comments inexcusable and completely counter to Auburn values. Hate speech of any kind is simply wrong, adding, Auburn is fully committed to the fundamental right of free speech, but we do not support hateful words or actions that degrade, disrespect or exclude. Concluding, Auburn officials are considering options available to the university."

As an aside, hate speech is not just any expression of contempt. It is specifically defined as aggressive speech against people of a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation. One is not born a cop; it is a choice. Therefore, condemnation of those who choose to participate in this oppressive system cannot be considered hate speech. Regardless, I find this hard and fast response to what Keeter is calling "hate speech" out of character considering the context of Auburn's response to actual hate speech in the past.

Not even a year ago, the University refused to act on hate speech against the LGBTQ community when homophobic College of Education professor Bruce Murray made several posts to social media that denied the existence of transgender people, including a meme of a trans woman with the caption, Todays liberals are so dumb they think men can change into women. And so evil they will punish you for telling the truth.

I think it is important to note that hate speech like this fuels hate crimes against trans women, and in Alabama there are currently no protections against hate crimes for people of the LGBTQ community.

Get The Plainsman straight to your inbox.

In light of this incident, the University's response was markedly different. Auburn University issued an official statement citing freedom of speech, and the College of Education Associate Dean stated, His personal beliefs are really no concern of mine, as they are any other faculty member.

So, I want to know. Where does Auburn University draw the line on freedom of speech? The line is certainly not in a place concerned with protecting human lives. As of now, it appears to be the same line distinguishing liberal and conservative values.

Kayleigh Chalkowski is a Ph.D. student in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University.

Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.

Kayleigh Chalkowski | Student

Read more from the original source:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Auburn forgoes freedom of speech for conservative values - The Auburn Plainsman

For years, there have been whispers about Big Techs tendency to muffle those who dare to challenge mainstream liberal orthodoxy. In 2018, thePew Research Centerfound, 72% of the public thinks it likely that social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable. By a four-to-one margin, respondents were more likely to say Big Tech supports the views of liberals over conservatives than vice versa.

As the 2020 elections approach, Big Tech has upped the ante in its limiting of free speech. This is a dangerous development that undermines the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. If left unchecked, it could lead to an Orwellian nightmare and, ultimately, to the end of the republic as we know it.

In the past few years, there have been countless cases of social media giants Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube muzzling conservatives and libertarians, for apparent political motives. For example, it is well documented thatTwitter uses shadow bansto prevent users from sharing their posts to the hundreds of millions of Twitter users.

Somehow,shadow bans overwhelmingly have been applied to those on the rightend of the political spectrum. Coincidence? I think not.

Although those on the left claim this is exaggerated, it happens all the time. And it seems that Twitter and others are clamping down more and more on prominent users who have the audacity to question the so-called consensus on a variety of issues.

Recently, Twitter has come under increased scrutiny because it has targeted conservatives such asDonald Trump Jr.who have posted material that question mainstream narrative about protests, coronavirus treatments, the wisdom of lockdowns and several other pressing issues.

The Trump Jr. case is particularly spine-chilling because all the presidents son did was post a video from a group of doctors who presented a case for using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. According to Twitter, Tweets with the video are in violation of our Covid-19 misinformation policy. We are taking action in line with our policy here.

Shortly after, Facebook and YouTube also scrubbed the video. Although this may seem like no big deal, it certainly is.

In 2020,most Americans receive their news via social media. The sheer power held by these companies concerning the flow of information is mind-boggling. And they can use their power to shift public opinion, as demonstrated in the 2010 election whenFacebook launched a get-out-the-vote campaignthat it claims resulted in 343,000 more voters going to the polls.

If Facebook and other social media giants can nudge Americans to vote, how long before they also shift public opinion in the direction they desire? It seems as if this Rubicon may have already been crossed.

In some ways, Google has more power over information than the social media companies because Google completely dominates internet searches. Over the past year,Googles market share of worldwide internet searches has hovered around 92 percent.

According to a recentstudytitled An analysis of political bias in search engine results, Googles top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a Left or Far Left slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results.

In other words, according to that study, Googles algorithm is politically biased to favor the left over the right. Maybe that explains why Google and other Big Tech companies contribute so much money to the Democratic Party compared to the Republican Party.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics,70 percentof donations by Facebook and its employees in the 2020 campaign cycle have gone to Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Googles political contributions have gone to Democrats. The same trend applies to Amazon (74 percent) and Apple (91 percent).

Fortunately, Big Techs bias is becoming more and more apparent. Most Americans are well aware that in general, Big Tech favors leftwing causes, politicians and opinions.

Since it seems that Congress is unwilling to do anything about this in the near future, the question is, what can and should we the people do about it?

Chris Talgo(ctalgo@heartland.org)is an editor at The Heartland Institute.

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech's assault on free speech | TheHill - The Hill

The Government must legislate to ensure freedom of speech is protected in university students unions, a leading think tank has said.

A report by the influential Policy Exchange said Parliament needed to make current legislation clearer and more robust, and impress upon universities and colleges their duty to ensure academic freedom and freedom of speech.

In recent years, students unions in England have denied pro-life and Christian student groups access to funding, and facilities such as stalls at freshers fairs.

The report called for a new Director for Academic Freedom at the Office for Students to promote tolerance for viewpoint diversity in universities and students unions.

The role would encourage compliance and investigate possible breaches.

It added that guidance should be updated to ensure students unions fulfil their freedom of speech duties and universities and colleges had to be being willing to support events in the face of intimidation and threats.

Policy Exchange has called for the Government to provide examples of sanctions that universities and colleges can apply to non-complying students unions.

It stated that universities and colleges would be expected to impose such fines against individual members of the University and those groups that fail to uphold freedom of speech, including fines for Student Unions who discriminate on grounds of viewpoint.

Where a Student Union denies a student group access to services, the report says there should be a process to appeal.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson indicated in February that the Government is ready to defend students rights to freedom of speech.

Writing in The Times, he said: If universities dont take action, the government will. If necessary, Ill look at changing the underpinning legal framework, perhaps to clarify the duties of students unions or strengthen free speech rights.

I dont take such changes lightly, but I believe we have a responsibility to do whatever necessary to defend this right.

In 2017, Balliol College of Oxford University banned the Christian Union from its Freshers Fair, because Christianity was labelled as an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism.

Organiser Freddy Potts claimed that the presence of CU members would be alienating for students and constituted a microaggression, but a backlash from Balliol students forced the organising committee to back down.

Office for Students defends free speech in no-platforming row

Security guards for Oxford prof after trans activists threats

Universities launch free speech societies

Read more here:

Influential think tank urges Govt to protect free speech in universities - The Christian Institute

Students still have (some) First Amendment rights.Lisa McIntyre/Unsplash This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

Images of maskless students packing the hallways between classes at North Paulding High Schoolin Georgia became the viral symbols this week of a nationwide battle over whether and how to reopen schools in the midst of a pandemic that is still really not under control. It was widely reported on Monday and Tuesday that the schoollocated about an hour outside of Atlantahad reopened with a masks-optional policy, despite an outbreak among football players who had worked out in a crowded indoor gym, and despite multiple positive tests among players and school staff. The district has taken the position, despite recommendations fromCenters for Disease Control and Prevention health officials, that mask-wearing was a personal choice and that social distancing will not be possible to enforce in most cases. Virtual enrollment for the school had filled up rapidly, so most students had no other choice but to attend class in person or risk suspension.

The public health story was itself soon eclipsed by Thursdays news that two North Paulding students had been suspended for taking and posting other photos and a video. One of the teens, 15-year-old Hannah Watters, told BuzzFeed News she had received a five-day, out-of-school suspension for posting a photo and a video on Twitter. Watters announced Friday that her suspension had been rescinded. Meanwhile, the school went to remote learning on Thursday and Friday in order to assess and refine its health policies.

While the matter of Watters suspension seems to have been resolved, the larger question of student speech rights, especially on social media, and especially during a public health disaster, is far from settled. What Watters was doing was journalism. In addition to her viral photos, she had also been posting tallies of the proportions of students wearing masks in her classes. The viral photo she posted was captioned, Day two at North Paulding High School. It is just as bad. We were stopped because it was jammed. We are close enough to the point where I got pushed multiple go to second block. This is not ok. Not to mention the 10% mask rate.

School superintendent Brian Otott, who confirmed the North Paulding student suspension in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, initially would not say whether the discipline was connected with the photos. (He would not comment, he said, out of regard for the students privacy.)Otott told the media that the photo was taken out of context. But he also told parents and guardiansin a letterthat there is no question that the photo does not look good. Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them. BuzzFeed further reported that on Wednesday, school principal Gabe Carmona threatened any student found criticizing the school on social media. Anything thats going on social media thats negative or alike without permission, photography, thats video or anything, there will be consequences, Carmona told students over the intercom.

Put to one side that I have heard this week from numerous parents in Georgia about daughters who have been sent home from school for wearing spaghetti straps, miniskirts, or shorts deemed too short for public viewing. (How is science-based public health a matter of personal choice whereas girls dressing demurely is an enforceable mandate?) Lets focus instead on why a school district thought it could suspend a student for posting newsworthy images.

Watters said she was called into the schools office Wednesday and told she had violated three policies from the school districts student code of conduct: She had used her phone during class time; she had used her phone during school hours for social media; and she had posted photos of minors without consent on a social media platform. But as Watters told CNN, high school students are exempt from the district policy on phones (its targeted toward younger students), and she didnt post the photo until after school was over. She admitted to violating the policy on posting images of students to social media, but, of course, students violate that rule every day.

Everyone loves to mouth the platitude that students dont shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, as set forth in the landmark 1969 Tinker case, when the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student had the right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. But Tinkers holding has been eroded over the decades since, such that student speech can be regulated in schools to ensure that substantial disruptions do not occur on school grounds. Anxiety over new media, bullying, sexting, and porn have only added to the tensions felt by school administrators who try to regulate online conduct by putting blanket policies in place.

At least in theory, student speech, say, archly advocating drug useas in the 2007 Bong Hits 4 Jesus casecan still be banned by authorities. (Posting the same sentiment from home outside of school hours is safer.) But a student raising life and death questions about matters of life and death in school hallways should be protected even under the more constrained free speech rights in public schools. Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, which just filed a letter of complaint to the school in this matter, suggests as much: We are very concerned that this is the first of many such instances that we are going to see as schools reopen and administrators try to manage the narrative of opening during a pandemic to their benefit.

Harris also notes, Only 14 states have legislation that protects student journalists from censorship by school officials. In the rest of the country, school officials in public schools have the ability to censor student journalists due to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which carved out an exception to Tinker for student journalists. In that 1988 case, the Supreme Court held that schools did not violate students First Amendment rights in killing news items about pregnancy and divorce. In an email, Harris colleague Mike Hiestand, the Student Press Law Centers senior legal counsel, was more blunt: Tinker is very much alive. (Both the [Supreme Court] decisionand the plaintiffs, who I took a free speech bus tour with a few years back.) I think its the school districts legal officeif they truly think they can stop students from peacefully sharing lawful, accurate information in the way students do in 2020 about their going back to school during a global pandemicthat may be dead. Give me a break.

Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Utah says in an email that punishing students for speechespecially speech on pressing matters of public concernisnt just harmful to individual students, although it certainly is that. Its harmful to the vibrancy of our conversations about school safety policies, because those students are some of the most important contributors to those conversations. And its harmful to our democracy, because we are inappropriately modeling to the next generation that government can simply stifle free speech to shelter itself from criticism.

Professor Sonja West, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Georgia adds that it appears that the school punished Hannah not for legitimatepedagogical reasons but becauseher photos were bad PR. This is exactly the kind of move the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. Censoring speech because its embarrassing may be very much in vogue these days, but that doesnt make it constitutional. And the state of Georgia, one would be remiss not to note, ranked fifth in the country for the number of total COVID-19 cases, eighth for cases per capita, and fourth in new cases in this past week.

In aninterviewwith CNN, Hannah Watters explained that she had posted the images early in the week because she was worried about the safety of everyone in the school building. My biggest concern is not only about me being safe, its about everyone being safe, because behind every teacher, student and staff member there is a family, there are friends, and I would just want to keep everyone safe. Americas schools are now ground zero for both ill-conceived pandemic planning and student endangerment, all dressed up under the guise of unfettered student choice and freedom. It is frankly astounding that those same same students who are free to die from a lethal virus are being singled out to be punished for chronicling it.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Original post:

In the Pandemic, Students Free Speech Rights Are More Important Than Ever - Slate

Students still have (some) First Amendment rights.Lisa McIntyre/Unsplash This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

Images of maskless students packing the hallways between classes at North Paulding High Schoolin Georgia became the viral symbols this week of a nationwide battle over whether and how to reopen schools in the midst of a pandemic that is still really not under control. It was widely reported on Monday and Tuesday that the schoollocated about an hour outside of Atlantahad reopened with a masks-optional policy, despite an outbreak among football players who had worked out in a crowded indoor gym, and despite multiple positive tests among players and school staff. The district has taken the position, despite recommendations fromCenters for Disease Control and Prevention health officials, that mask-wearing was a personal choice and that social distancing will not be possible to enforce in most cases. Virtual enrollment for the school had filled up rapidly, so most students had no other choice but to attend class in person or risk suspension.

The public health story was itself soon eclipsed by Thursdays news that two North Paulding students had been suspended for taking and posting other photos and a video. One of the teens, 15-year-old Hannah Watters, told BuzzFeed News she had received a five-day, out-of-school suspension for posting a photo and a video on Twitter. Watters announced Friday that her suspension had been rescinded. Meanwhile, the school went to remote learning on Thursday and Friday in order to assess and refine its health policies.

While the matter of Watters suspension seems to have been resolved, the larger question of student speech rights, especially on social media, and especially during a public health disaster, is far from settled. What Watters was doing was journalism. In addition to her viral photos, she had also been posting tallies of the proportions of students wearing masks in her classes. The viral photo she posted was captioned, Day two at North Paulding High School. It is just as bad. We were stopped because it was jammed. We are close enough to the point where I got pushed multiple go to second block. This is not ok. Not to mention the 10% mask rate.

School superintendent Brian Otott, who confirmed the North Paulding student suspension in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, initially would not say whether the discipline was connected with the photos. (He would not comment, he said, out of regard for the students privacy.)Otott told the media that the photo was taken out of context. But he also told parents and guardiansin a letterthat there is no question that the photo does not look good. Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them. BuzzFeed further reported that on Wednesday, school principal Gabe Carmona threatened any student found criticizing the school on social media. Anything thats going on social media thats negative or alike without permission, photography, thats video or anything, there will be consequences, Carmona told students over the intercom.

Put to one side that I have heard this week from numerous parents in Georgia about daughters who have been sent home from school for wearing spaghetti straps, miniskirts, or shorts deemed too short for public viewing. (How is science-based public health a matter of personal choice whereas girls dressing demurely is an enforceable mandate?) Lets focus instead on why a school district thought it could suspend a student for posting newsworthy images.

Watters said she was called into the schools office Wednesday and told she had violated three policies from the school districts student code of conduct: She had used her phone during class time; she had used her phone during school hours for social media; and she had posted photos of minors without consent on a social media platform. But as Watters told CNN, high school students are exempt from the district policy on phones (its targeted toward younger students), and she didnt post the photo until after school was over. She admitted to violating the policy on posting images of students to social media, but, of course, students violate that rule every day.

Everyone loves to mouth the platitude that students dont shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, as set forth in the landmark 1969 Tinker case, when the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student had the right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. But Tinkers holding has been eroded over the decades since, such that student speech can be regulated in schools to ensure that substantial disruptions do not occur on school grounds. Anxiety over new media, bullying, sexting, and porn have only added to the tensions felt by school administrators who try to regulate online conduct by putting blanket policies in place.

At least in theory, student speech, say, archly advocating drug useas in the 2007 Bong Hits 4 Jesus casecan still be banned by authorities. (Posting the same sentiment from home outside of school hours is safer.) But a student raising life and death questions about matters of life and death in school hallways should be protected even under the more constrained free speech rights in public schools. Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, which just filed a letter of complaint to the school in this matter, suggests as much: We are very concerned that this is the first of many such instances that we are going to see as schools reopen and administrators try to manage the narrative of opening during a pandemic to their benefit.

Harris also notes, Only 14 states have legislation that protects student journalists from censorship by school officials. In the rest of the country, school officials in public schools have the ability to censor student journalists due to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which carved out an exception to Tinker for student journalists. In that 1988 case, the Supreme Court held that schools did not violate students First Amendment rights in killing news items about pregnancy and divorce. In an email, Harris colleague Mike Hiestand, the Student Press Law Centers senior legal counsel, was more blunt: Tinker is very much alive. (Both the [Supreme Court] decisionand the plaintiffs, who I took a free speech bus tour with a few years back.) I think its the school districts legal officeif they truly think they can stop students from peacefully sharing lawful, accurate information in the way students do in 2020 about their going back to school during a global pandemicthat may be dead. Give me a break.

Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Utah says in an email that punishing students for speechespecially speech on pressing matters of public concernisnt just harmful to individual students, although it certainly is that. Its harmful to the vibrancy of our conversations about school safety policies, because those students are some of the most important contributors to those conversations. And its harmful to our democracy, because we are inappropriately modeling to the next generation that government can simply stifle free speech to shelter itself from criticism.

Professor Sonja West, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Georgia adds that it appears that the school punished Hannah not for legitimatepedagogical reasons but becauseher photos were bad PR. This is exactly the kind of move the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. Censoring speech because its embarrassing may be very much in vogue these days, but that doesnt make it constitutional. And the state of Georgia, one would be remiss not to note, ranked fifth in the country for the number of total COVID-19 cases, eighth for cases per capita, and fourth in new cases in this past week.

In aninterviewwith CNN, Hannah Watters explained that she had posted the images early in the week because she was worried about the safety of everyone in the school building. My biggest concern is not only about me being safe, its about everyone being safe, because behind every teacher, student and staff member there is a family, there are friends, and I would just want to keep everyone safe. Americas schools are now ground zero for both ill-conceived pandemic planning and student endangerment, all dressed up under the guise of unfettered student choice and freedom. It is frankly astounding that those same same students who are free to die from a lethal virus are being singled out to be punished for chronicling it.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Original post:

In the Pandemic, Students Free Speech Rights Are More Important Than Ever - Slate Magazine

The internet is not what it was supposed to be. Early tech pioneers and the tech entrepreneurs who came after them imagined a world without borders that would bring us together, where all human knowledge would be available at our fingertips and everybody would have a voice. If there had been a motto for what the internet was supposed to stand for, it would have been collaboration, openness, freedom. But while we got some of that, we also got polarization, falsehoods, rising extremism that destabilizes societies, autocratic powers that undermine democracies, and giant tech companies that are eliminating privacy. We got a system that not only permits, but amplifies hate, bullying, and divisiveness.

Big Tech has started to timidly manage the content available on its platforms, and the debate over whether the internet should be a place where anyone can say anything is raging. Facebook took down Trump ads with a Nazi sign and a campaign video with COVID misinformation. Reddit banned 2,000 subreddits, including The_Donald, a forum with nearly 800,000 users, because of repeated violation of the platforms rules against hate speech, harassment, and content manipulation. Twitter started adding fact-check notices on tweets and even briefly suspended the Trump campaigns account for spreading false information. Molyneux, a Canadian white supremacist, was banned from YouTube. Trump was suspended on Twitch for hateful conduct.

Some people lambast these moves as putting tech giants on a slippery slope that leads straight to censorship. Others are more quietly concerned about what they mean for the future of free speech. But these arguments seem to overlook that the internet today is a driver of division and chaos because we have lost sight of a simple truth: To be truly inclusive, the internet needs to get comfortable with exclusion.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them, Austrian philosopher Karl Popper warned 75 years ago in laying out the Paradox of Tolerance. He raised the idea that a line needs to be drawn when the preservation of society is at stake. In other words, if we truly value democracy and the free-speech environment that have allowed Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and many other sites to flourish as places that showcase a multiplicity of voices, we need to urgently stop broadcasting the voices that threaten this environment. As UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson declared during the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Racist hate speech [] threatens to silence the free speech of its victims.

To be tolerated, an opinion has to respect the right of all humans to exist equally. As African American novelist and activist Robert Jones Jr. wrote: We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist. When someone is calling for a group of people to be discriminated against, for someone to be bullied, raped, or murdered, for a specific race or gender to be considered inferior, they are by definition making it impossible for the space they are occupying to be inclusive.

And while beliefs, truth, and interpretation of facts can be debated, it is incredibly dangerous to extend intellectual relativism to facts. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored, Aldous Huxley noted in the 1920s. A common understanding of facts is required to enable any kind of discussion, collaboration, and ultimately trust between human beings. When the frontier between reality and fiction is constantly undermined, the foundations of human society start to irremediably crumble.

Tech platforms laissez-faire approach to content moderationdraped in the flag of free speech and amplified by algorithms that are optimized to incite extreme emotionshas created a swamp where the strongest, loudest, and most outrageous voices triumph. By trying to be inclusive without setting boundaries and protections, weve allowed people who crave division and violence to have more reach than ever: Theyre undermining the fabric of the society that allows them to exist in the first place.

There are those who argue that imposing any kind of limitations on content will inevitably lead to governments muzzling dissidents and suppressing criticism. They seem to forget the continent where Im from. Europe has been doing this for a few decades, and while mistakes have been made, free speech is alive and well in most quarters. Following World War II, Western European democracies have implemented a series of measures that, while protecting free speech, ensure that it isnt absolute and takes into account other values and rights, such as human dignity and safety. In Germany, Austria, and France, for example, Holocaust denial is punishable by law. Germany has banned parties with Nazi ideologies.

This approach also works well in the business world. Across the globe, companies that want to be inclusive and ensure equal opportunities for all employees tend to have zero-tolerance policies toward hate speech, racism, discrimination, and fabrication of facts. In other words, to remain tolerant and competitive, they dont tolerate intolerance and misinformation.

When it comes to the internet, some of the largest platforms recognize the need to restrict speech. Wikipedia puts content through a fairly intensive vetting process focused on ensuring accuracy of facts. Social networks have spent considerable time defining comprehensive guidelines around whats acceptable and whats not and have hired moderators to enforce them. Facebook released community standards in 2018 outlining six different types of content that would be restricted, and it employs more than 15.000 moderators in the U.S. to enforce (at least some of) these restrictions. YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and others have rules that explicitly ban certain types of content. Unfortunately, judging by the results, these efforts have been inadequate. The rules have been a moving target and sanctions variable.

So, before we talk about whether we need new rules and guidelines for content on the internet, we need tech platforms to start implementing their own guidelines with strong conviction and the full force of their formidable resources. Tech used to be the place that attracted people who wanted to disrupt the status quo and were not afraid to go to war with the powerful, the rich, the established. Early tech pioneers were fearless in their conviction that they were building a better, more inclusive world. We need todays tech leaders to be equally fearless, for the world and for our democracies. Only by being intolerant of the intolerants will we realize the original dream of building an inclusive internet.

Maelle Gavet has worked in technology for 15 years. She served as CEO of Ozon, an executive vice president at Priceline Group, and chief operating officer of Compass. She is the author of a forthcoming book,Trampled by Unicorns: Big Techs Empathy Problem and How to Fix It.

View original post here:

It's time for tech platforms to stop tolerating the intolerable - Fast Company

Sixty billion dollar bribe. Energy corruption in Ohio. And, it all leads back to Donald Trump. Are you surprised that Donald Trump is behind the latest energy corruption? Professor Leah Stokes joins Thom Hartmann, to discus how the Trump administration lobbied for the bailout at the heart of the scandal! Stokes investigates the politics of energy and environmental policy in the United States. She is the author of "Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States."

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

AEP Bribe coal Donald Trump Energy First Energy Fossil Fuels Leah Stokes Natural Gas Pollution The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

Originally posted here:

Is Trump Behind $60 Billion Utility Bribe? - Free Speech TV

The Federal District Court made the right decision in tossing a lawsuit by the American Federation of Government Employees. As our Nicole Ogrysko reported, the suit was against the Office of Special Counsel.

The AFGEs beef was over guidance OSC handed out two years ago, saying that in-the-office displays of #resist code for oppose President Trump categorically or in-the-office advocating for (or against) impeachment could be construed as a violation of the Hatch Act. AFGE and its suing partners contend this was a violation of their Constitutional free speech rights.

The court gave several reasons for dismissing the suit. In essence it said nothing had happened to merit a lawsuit OCSs advisory-only opinion didnt cause any federal employee to actually get muzzled at work. The court decided that the free-speech claim wasnt ripe for review.

In my interview earlier this week with Special Counsel Henry Kerner, he pointed out that the Hatch Act doesnt bar all political speech, but rather only applies to talking, button-wearing, sign-displaying and money-seeking activities aimed at the success or failure of a candidate for a political office.

Maybe AFGE thought Trump was not a candidate barely halfway through his term. Since Calvin Coolidge, what president hasnot sought a second term?

The OSC guidance stands but, as the court noted, its only guidance anyhow.

Theres a bigger issue, though. Even if ranting for or against impeachment does not violate the Hatch Act, why do people want to drag their politics into the office in the first place? What about good taste and a bit of reticence that keeps relations among colleagues cordial and businesslike?

Most businesses nowadays and many government agencies have rules about speech and behavior that can cause disharmony or insult others. Its easy enough for the most benignly intentioned person to run afoul of what constitutes offensive speech in a society where everyone, it seems, is looking for ways to be victimized by offense, real or imagined. Many organizations caution about even mundane things. Tell a woman she looks great in that dress, or a man in those trousers, and you could get hauled into HR.

References to third parties, such as people of another race or gender, if offensive to one of the people actually in the conversation, can get the offender in trouble. Many years ago I had a boss a highly competent executive in charge of a profitable division advise me: Be careful about hiring young women, Tommy. They get pregnant and leave. Even in 1986 I thought, Did he really say that? Can you imagine that today?

Nastiness in todays politics has a sort of grandeur. Its infecting every part of life, if we let it. It wasnt always that way. In 1968 my mother worked in a small manufacturers rep office. The other six or so employees favored Richard Nixon. My mother preferred Hubert Humphrey. The day after the election, I recall her remarking about how gracious they all were that her candidate had lost. No one gloated. Or promised to burn down the other side.

Today leaders from clergy to business executives have had to caution against the corrosive effects of shouting about politics in their settings. For a federal office, such speech may not violate the Hatch Act, but that doesnt make it a good idea. Yes, President Trump certainly engenders strong feelings. All the more reason for maintaining of the great unwritten rules for office and bar settings: No religion, sex or politics.

The simple fact is that employers, including federal agencies, have the right to regulate speech within their walls when people are on the clock. Federal employees are otherwise free to attend rallies or protests, do this or that (except fundraising) on behalf of a candidate or cause (but not in their official capacity), or ruin any cookout they want with beer-induced political ranting.

Kerner put it this way. Just because the Hatch Act isnt violated agencies have policies on political expression and other things. Federal workers are expected to work for all taxpayers, and to keep politics largely out of the workplace. Wherever we work, were expected to do what were paid to do and not, as Kerner put it, bicker over our political views.

ByDavid Thornton

People who suffer from boanthropy believe themselves to be a cow or an ox.

Source: Wikipedia

View original post here:

Politics at work: Even if you can, its a bad idea - Federal News Network

It is accepted wisdom that we live in a free country. Every kid in grade school learns that. We have a free, if flawed, press. Even with the virus, were pretty much free to assemble; peaceful protest is legal. We can worship if we want, or we dont have to if we dont want. And, of course, we have the right to vote.

So, why would anyone even seriously question whether we live in a free country?

Because, in reality, were not nearly as free as wed like to think.

Just because we still have free-speech rights doesnt mean we feel free to exercise those rights, to say whats on our minds. What if were afraid to voice our opinions? Are we still free then?

Which brings us to a new study by the Cato Institute.

Lets start with this about how a majority of Americans are so afraid of what could happen to them if they express an unpopular opinion. Nearly two out of every three Americans (62 percent) say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because theyre worried that others might find their opinions offensive.

Right from the moment we won the revolution and sent the British packing, weve liked to think of ourselves as a courageous, tough people. Fear was not part of who we were. Yet now, two out of three of us are afraid to say whats on our minds, not because a dictator might lock us up but because someones feelings might be hurt. Welcome to America 2020.

Cato says this fear crosses party lines: 52 percent of Democrats have opinions theyre afraid to share, 59 percent of independents feel that way, and so do a staggering 77 percent of Republicans. And what might happen, they fear, is that if they say the wrong thing, they might get fired and lose their livelihoods; Cato found that one in three Americans (32 percent) who work say theyre worried about missing out on career opportunities, or losing their jobs, if their political opinions became known.

Given the political climate these days, Americans may have good reason to be afraid. But whatever this is, its not tough and its not courageous; its not who we like to think we are.

Here are some other numbers that should worry all of us:

Thirty-six percent of Americans who identify as strong conservatives think its okay to fire an executive for donating his or her own money to Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Biden clarifies comments comparing African American and Latino communities Kanye West may have missed deadline to get on Wisconsin ballot by minutes: report MOREs presidential campaign. Self-described strong conservatives the very people railing against the cancel culture think its okay to fire an executive simply for donating personal money to Bidens campaign.

If you think thats bad and it is consider this: 50 percent of those who identify as strong liberals say its okay to fire executives who personally donate money to President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Coronavirus talks on life support as parties dig in, pass blame Ohio governor tests negative in second coronavirus test MOREs reelection campaign.

Taking these results together indicates that a significant majority of Americans with diverse political views and backgrounds self-censor their political opinions, according to Cato. This large number from across demographic groups suggests withheld opinions may not simply be radical or fringe perspectives in the process of being socially marginalized. Instead, many of these opinions may be shared by a large number of people. Opinions so widely shared are likely shaping how people think about salient policy issues and ultimately impacting how they vote. But if people feel they cannot discuss these important policy matters, such views will not have an opportunity to be scrutinized, understood, or reformed.

This is the America we live in.

As a correspondent for CBS News for many years, I traveled to many countries, including authoritarian countries such as China and the old Soviet Union. As a general rule, people in places like that arent likely to share their opinions. There are consequences for holding the wrong opinions; you can get into serious trouble if you have unacceptable ideas.

No, Im not suggesting that the United States is like China or the old Soviet Union, where having an unpopular opinion might get you a train ride to a re-education camp or a jail cell in the gulag. But I am suggesting the obvious: People in a free country shouldnt be afraid to say whats on their minds.

But it looks like a majority of us are.

The government hasnt taken steps to curtail free speech. Not yet, anyway. And there may not be a need to do so: A majority of Americans are censoring themselves.

Bernard Goldberg, an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist, is a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. He previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

View post:

Afraid to speak your mind? Maybe we're not as 'free' as we think | TheHill - The Hill