New Delhi:The Ahmedabad police on Thursday defended the continuous imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the city, which prohibits the assembly four or more persons, saying that a stay on its implementation would lead to chaos.

The restriction has been imposed continuously in Ahmedabad since at least 2016.

The city police, in its affidavit filed before the Gujarat high court, also asserted that although the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental one, it is not absolute. According to the Indian Express, the police referred to the 2002 riots, the Patidar quota agitation, Dalit protests after the Una attack and protests against the movie Padmaavat to make its case.

The polices reply was in response to a petition filed in December last year by five people, including professor Navdeep Mathur of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, against the repeated imposition of Section 144,

The affidavit filed by the Ahmedabad city police added that such restrictions are necessary to maintain law and order in the city.

The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. However, it is not absolute and there are restrictionsThe petitioner has not given a single instance which shows that the freedom and liberty or any constitutional right of any citizen is taken away, the reply stated.

After taking the reply on record, Justice Umesh Trivedi posted the matter heading on February 13.

Mathur was among the 50-odd persons detained by the city police on December 16 for taking part in a peaceful protest outside IIMA campus against the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the police crackdown on the students in Delhi.

The petitioners had sought quashing of orders passed by the city police commissioner under Section 144 of CrPC. The petition also sought a stay on the implementation of any such order currently in force.

Also read: The Misuse of Lathi Charge by the Indian Police

As The Wire has reported before, the petition says that the police commissioner has been issuing these orders claiming that it seems that there is a need to maintain public order in [the] city of Ahmedabad at the beginning of each order, but with no explanation of why the renewal is needed. The commissioner has no authority to issue such orders and that the power to do so lies with the district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate or any other executive magistrate, they argue.

The petitioners had stated that the police order banning assembly of more than four people needs to be quashed to enable them, the residents of Ahmedabad, exercise their right to freedom of expression, right to peaceful assembly and right to move freely under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

It was also contended that people in general do not even know that police have issued such notification banning such assembly. Petitioners argued that orders are passed in a routine manner, as a new notification is issued with almost the same text as soon as the tenure of the old notification comes to an end.

In their defence, Ahmedabad police said that any stay on the implementation of the notification would lead to chaos in law and order situation in the city and there is always a requirement of maintaining law and order situation in the city.

The city had witnessed several protests, agitations and rallies in the past, the latest being those against as well as in favour of the CAA. Despite heavy police deployment, some protesters assaulted on duty police officers and damaged public and private property, it said.

If the police starts using its powers, then protesters would be behind bars in such situation and a number of FIRs would be lodged. But due to the restrictions imposed under section 144, the police controls the unlawful assembly and only detains them, the affidavit said.

It added that even some of the petitioners who had organised the rally without permission (outside IIMA in December) were detained and released without any FIR registered against them.

This provision is not used for restricting public rallies. Permission was given by the police for 10 anti-CAA rallies and even today two protests against CAA are going on at different locations in Rakhiyal area, the reply said.

Replying to the allegation that people are not aware that such restrictions are in place, the police said the notifications are displayed at all the police stations and it is also shared on social media.

Police all over the country have been accused of misusing Section 144 at their own convenience. The Supreme Court too has noted this, and said in 2011, Refusal and/or withdrawal of permission [for a public gathering/protest] should be for valid and exceptional reasons. The executive power, to cause a restriction on a constitutional right within the scope of Section 144 Cr.P.C., has to be used sparingly and very cautiously.

Lawyer Sarim Naved wrote in The Wire about how the police misuse the section to justify violence:

This is the real danger posed by Section 144. You have a body, namely the police, which is not trained or known for its restraint in the face of the disadvantaged. The consequences of the violation of Section 144 have to be legal, including prosecution for wilfully disobeying a public servant and for any other offences which may be committed.

The imposition of an order under Section 144 does not grant authority to the police to become violent. The police can use violence to disperse an unlawful assembly only if the situation warrants so. Otherwise, the procedure has to be the same as committing any offence under the IPC. File an FIR and prosecute.

(With PTI inputs)

Visit link:

Removing Section 144 Will Lead to 'Chaos', Free Speech 'Not Absolute': Ahmedabad Police - The Wire

Ezra Nugiel, for the Free Press Published 9:08 a.m. ET Jan. 31, 2020

Middlebury College has landed on a list of Americas 10 worst colleges for free speech, assembled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofitfocusedon protecting free speech rights on college campuses in the United States.

FIRE includesthe following in Middlebury's list of "speech-chilling" infractions:

"They denied a willing audience the opportunity to hear Legutkos arguments and critics from challenging him, either through peaceful protest or pointed questions," FIRE wrote about Middlebury in their list.

"The unilateral cancelation of Legutkos speech was one of the most troubling infringements on student and faculty free speech and open inquiry rights we saw last year."

Find the Free Press' coverage on Legutko's visithere.

See the Free Press' coveragehere.

"The college quickly backed down and has sinceupdateditsdemonstrations policy, to its credit," writes FIRE.

Coverage from the Middlebury Campus, Middlebury's student-run newspaper, can be foundhere.

"Until we see clear evidence that these infringements wont happen again, Middlebury finds itself on this most inauspicious of lists," FIRE writes.

Middlebury Collegehas an opportunity to redeem themselves from this article's claims, asCharles Murray is scheduled to return to the campus this March.

Since 2011, FIRE hasnamed65 individual colleges and universities as Americas worst for free speech. Their 2020"Worst Colleges for Free Speech" list marks theirninth year compiling theirworst-of-the-worst list.

Middlebury found itself onthe list alongside:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is a nonprofit educational foundation founded in 1999 in Philadelphia. FIRE was foundedby University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and attorneyHarvey Silverglate.

FIRE says the organization strives to educatethe public aboutthreats to free speech rights andmeans to preserve them on U.S. college campuses.

FIREs website states its mission is "to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality,religious liberty, and sanctity of consciencethe essential qualities of liberty."

Follow Ezra on Twitter: @EzraNugiel

This coverage is only possible with support from our readers. Sign up today for a digital subscription.

Read or Share this story: https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2020/01/31/middlebury-syracuse-harvard-worst-college-campuses-for-free-speech-according-to-fire/4620393002/

Read the original post:

Why Middlebury was deemed one of the worst colleges for free speech according to FIRE - Burlington Free Press

Nearly 250 years ago, representatives of the American colonies met in two Continental Congresses. At the Second Congress they signed a Declaration of Independence that put forth a radical and profoundly imaginative statement of values and ideals.

The United States now finds itself at a moment in which creative thinking and revolutionary imagination are desperately needed.

One month from now, in Los Angeles, California, a city and state with a rich history of ambitious social and creative movements, we will convene perhaps the largest gathering of creative minds in American history. This meeting of artists, academic, cultural institutions, and social justice advocates will take place February 28 to March 1. A first-of-its-kind event, it will be convened by For Freedoms, an anti-partisan platform to promote civic engagement, civil discourse, and direct action through art.

Since For Freedomss founding in 2016, we have worked to lead through culture, placing the arts at the forefront of a national conversation about how to move forward as a unified society. To revisit prior national definitions of liberty, we took inspiration from president Franklin Delano Roosevelts Four Freedoms speech, in which he proclaimed that Americas identity was centered on freedom of speech and freedom of worship as well as freedom from want and freedom from fear.

For Freedoms, Four Freedoms 1 (2018) in New Orleans, from the For Freedoms 50 State Initiative. Photo by John Ludlam.

Norman Rockwell created some of his most acclaimed works to illustrate those four freedoms. We restaged those artworks, but broadened the conversation from his middle-class, white, Anglo-Saxon context, inviting people of all races and religions to pose for our 21st-century reimaginings of those scenes. What was created was a vital illustration of a multi-cultural, multi-faith, multi-racial vision for America and the world.

One of the principles driving For Freedoms is at the heart of this question: How can artists and other storytellers and creative people come together to move beyond division and uplift humankind? How can we foster non-binary thinking, based on the philosophy that when we choose a side, someone is always going to lose? What does a future look like where no one wins or loses but everyone plays?

The For Freedoms Congress (FFCon) is where we start.

The idea for the Congress was seeded by our previous project, the 50 State Initiative, the largest creative collaboration in American history. Working with 800 artists and 250 museums, arts institutions, and universities across the country, we supported billboards, exhibitions, and arts-led townhall meetings in every state and in Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico that aimed to inject nuanced thinking into public discourse in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Town hall at the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, 2018, as part of For Freedoms Town Hall: The 50 State Initiative. Photo by Virginia Harold.

What we learned was that the biggest asset that resulted from the project was the network of creative people who believed in their capacity to change the world through culture. We heard from these people that they wanted to meet face to face. The Congress is the first attempt to make that wish a reality.

We believe in the power of community and in the endless possibilities of working together to create the future we want to see. At this moment of collective national anxiety, we hope the sight of creative and empathetic people coming together will be a balm for the soul.

But we are aiming higher than that as well.

We want this gathering to supercharge this nations cultural infrastructure. We think that by working together, we can create a set of digital tools and plans for each institution to take back to their communities and begin to share with their fellow citizens. The idea is to spread engagement and purpose alongside these trusted and respected institutions.

Lawn sign activation at INTO ACTION, Los Angeles, 2018. Photo by Claire Woolcott.

Modeled on prior convenings in art and American politics, programming will include teaching, game-playing, co-creation, and reflection, and will be rooted in values such as community, transparency, and equity. A series of focused, artist-led planning sessions will result in an artists platform for civic action in 2020 and will articulate values shared within the greater community. There will also be four public townhall sessions in which participants explore Roosevelts Four Freedoms and what they mean today.

Events, all of which will be minimal- to zero-waste, will be hosted by the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture, the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, theHammer Museum, the California African-American Museum, the Japanese American National Museum, and the Crenshaw Dairy Mart.

We believe culture leads to change. But not without all of us playing a role to drive that change. Its no mistake that this Congress takes place in an election year, in a nation as bitterly divided as it has been in decades. The conventions of the major political parties have become driven by ratings and stagecraft. Here it may be worth remembering that in his farewell address, George Washington warned against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

In contrast, we plan to have artists lead genuine and candid discussions. The focus will be on beginning to build a new and different political future in an event that opens participants hearts and minds to deeper truths about themselves in a spirit of solidarity. As artists and other creatives, we can imagine no higher mission.

See original here:

In One Month, For Freedoms Will Stage the Largest Congress of Creatives in Americas History. Will You Join Us? - artnet News

Robert F. Bukaty | AP

Robert F. Bukaty | AP

In this July 31, 2018, file photo, a doe and her two fawns prepare to cross a road near Bar Harbor.

Last week, I told you about Disneys plan to turn the classic film Bambi into a live-action movie, and shared my fear that hunters could become less popular for future generations as a result.

As you might expect, BDN readers were quick to chime in on the issue. Heres some of what they had to say, in both our comments section and on social media. Responses are edited for space and clarity.

From SmartenUp: [You wrote]: With that said, the new, more realistic, live-action Bambi worries me a bit.

Good, I am glad, it should!

Animals die. Blood is shed.

Exactly.

Even for an avid hunter, taking the life of an animal can be an emotional event.

If it is emotional for you, think how it affects the animal and the animals family!

But hunting puts food on our tables

Lots of other ways to do that without shooting, without killing.

I am now looking forward to this new version of Bambi.

From Nunyabiznizz: Many of you folks who do not believe hunting is a scientific way of managing animals have your head in the sand. You would all probably be the first to complain when Bambi eats all the flowers you meticulously planted a couple months earlier. Or the garden vegetables you spent hours planting. Never mind when you hit one with your beloved Prius and must pay thousands of dollars to get it repaired. Have you seen an animal die from starvation? I have seen the final chapter (death) of this and cannot comprehend the suffering it must have endured.

For me, hunting is not about the killing. It is time spent with my family and friends. If I only went in the woods to kill something I would never go in the woods. However, when the opportunity presents itself I do my best to make a clean, ethical shot. I thank GOD and revel in the fact that I have an organic, tasty animal to share. I truly feel bad for those who do not have the opportunity to experience everything hunting has given to me.

From OrgFarm: I think the future of Maine sportsmen and sportswomen would fare better if the BDN didnt have a sports writer who regularly writes articles to stir up a bees nest of anti-game management folks like we see here.

One last thing. I hope all of you that look down on us hunters are vegetarians! If you think any commercially farmed animal is living a life of nirvana for your nourishment you are sadly mistaken.

From RustyHalo: Heres the case of another BDN writer hypocritically griping about the damage that the First Amendment will do if allowed to go unchecked in this case, causing unfounded trauma to moviegoers who might get a bad taste in their mouth about hunters if they see Bambi 1 or Bambi 2.

Editors note: The First Amendment dictates that 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. A columnist pointing out possible ramifications of a film does not abridge freedom of speech.

Of course, as BDN readers, we have the uninterrupted pleasure every year of seeing the photographic glorification of the Great Maine Hunter (and a few Great Out-of-State Hunters) standing with a high-powered rifle and a goofy grin over the bloody carcass of another magnificent Maine creature during the annual harvest. Thats good free speech. Got it.

For those of us who choose not to hunt, most also choose not to gripe about the annual bloody gallery of dead eyes, lolling tongues, and dripping blood. Live and let live, is our motto, although come to think of it, thats sort of an ironic stand for us to take, given the fact that hunting is a recreational activity where animals die and blood is shed.

From Vix04087: I actually think the recent live action versions are geared more for adults than children. I recently took my 5-year-old grandson to see the Lion King which was one of my adult childrens all time favorite movie 25 years ago and he was totally bored and even seemed to miss the trauma that was implied with the death of Mufasa. I think preconceived ideas of killing animals comes from adults and is passed down to young minds. If we just taught children where their food comes from, not just wild game, but all meat they would not see hunting as slaughter but as a personal choice.

From Jonathan Albrecht: [You wrote] it [hunting] helps keep wildlife populations in a healthy balance. A healthy balance for whom? The animals or humans? I too see myself as a reasonable, rational former hunter and conservationist who is willing to consider other points of view. But as I get older and modern life changes, it becomes less tenable to believe that hunting contributes to a healthy balance or puts meat on the table. Hunting has become just another hobby in our quiver of hobbies like football, baseball, poker, or coin collecting that has emotional highs and lows, but which continues to lose positives and gain negatives and someday may become as irrelevant as an 1890 telephone. Well be puzzled why we ever thought it was so wonderful.

From Christian Pearl Belanger: As a moderate, and an avid Bambi fan from childhood, it never changed my views on hunting. It just gave the the hard facts of life and I was really blue about it for a week but I accepted that death is a part of life and then learned that there are reasons for the laws around hunting seasons.

From Charlotte Hanks: Hardcore liberal here. Hunting your own meat is much more ethical than supermarket factory farmed meat. I used to raise my own meat, I know what it is to rear an animal for slaughter. Thats better than factory farmed, but still not as ethical as hunting. If youre going to eat meat, you have to be okay with killing animals, or youre a hypocrite.

See the original post:

What BDN readers think about planned live-action 'Bambi' movie - Bangor Daily News

Sharjeel Imam, Yogi Adityanath, Anurag Thakur...now Anant Kumar Hegde. And before them Rahul Gandhi. Whats common between them? Yes, in different ways, and with varying degrees of infractions, all of them relate to contentious political expressions in the public space. The propriety of the words Yogi and Thakur used, which rang out from campaign loudspeakers, belongs to another domain. Nuanced questions of discourse ethics have only a remote connection with those.

But curiously, what Hegde has managed to convey in the latest episodethat Mahatma Gandhi only led an adjustment freedom struggle in cahoots with the British colonial masters, and that any eulogising of him only makes his blood boilis not vastly different in its degree of irreverence from what the young scholar, from another end of the political spectrum, said a few days ago. Sharjeel Imam in fact thinks Gandhi is the biggest fascist of them all.

That is not what landed him in jailit was, instead, a call for a blockade of Assam, over-interpreted as calling for Indias dismembermentbut his views on Gandhi, the Constitution et al form the more arresting parts of his speeches. Should they be banned? Should Hegde be made to apologise for what he said, as the BJP now wants him to? Should party loudmouths be taxed every time they go overboard, to shore up our exchequer? Or should contentious speech existand invite calm refutation?

That political discourse has been plumbing some spectacularly new lows in the recent past is no news. But what we are presented with here is another interesting dilemma about free speech and its limitshow to navigate between a mool mantra of liberal democracy and the wider imperative of finding ways to conduct debates without causing harm to collective sanity? Perhaps the only clear limit needed is when speech poses the threat of actual, physical harm to people.

Go here to read the rest:

What are the limits of freedom of speech? - The New Indian Express

Good Morning Britain (GMB) hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid were left stunned as a heated debate on freedom of speech unfolded on the show. The row caused Piers to brand "snowflakes triggered by everything" as the "enemies of free speech". The clash comes after an Oxford College professor caused controversy as they wanted guests to sign a code of conduct to attend a debating event. University of Sussex Philosophy professor Kathleen Stock argued it is illegal for universities to stifle free speech.

Whereas City University's Student Union vice president of education Saqlain Riaz argued sensible debates should have safeguarding policies.

Mr Riaz said: I am stating the fact that as a society we are moving forward.

We are having these conversations.

Freedom of speech isnt just for Kathleen or Piers Morgan it is for everybody."

DON'T MISS:Piers Morgan shut down by Holly Willoughby over x-rated swipe

Ms Stock answered: This is part of the problem.

We are confusing the discussion of difficult ideas with personalised insults.

In fact, we are finding more personalised insults the more we shout out."

But Piers was having none of it. He raged: "Universities have become so infused with snowflakes who can't take any criticism and who get triggered by absolutely everything. And in the end, that is the enemy of free speech. Universities should be about challenging your own ideas."

The outspoken host added: "The tenet of universities should be free speech and debate. And yet it is being stifled everywhere we look."

Originally posted here:

'You're the ENEMY of free speech' Piers Morgan slams 'snowflakes triggered by everything' - Express

RIO DE JANEIRO President Jair Bolsonaros top culture official was dismissed on Friday over an address in which he used phrases and ideas from an infamous Nazi propaganda speech while playing an opera that Adolf Hitler regarded as a favorite.

The address by Roberto Alvim, the culture secretary, set off an outcry across the political spectrum as Brazilians reacted with exasperation and incredulity.

It was the latest flash point in a broader debate over freedom of speech and culture in the Bolsonaro era. The president campaigned on a promised course correction after an era of rule by leftist leaders, whom he accused of trying to impose cultural Marxism.

Critics say that he and his allies are taking a dogmatic approach to the arts, the public education system and to sexuality and reproductive rights.

Mr. Alvims speech, which was posted on the culture secretariats Twitter account Thursday evening, shows Mr. Alvim speaking sternly sitting at a desk. Behind him is a framed photograph of Mr. Bolsonaro. A large wooden cross on his desk is featured prominently.

Careful observers were aghast after noticing that a few minutes into the address, Mr. Alvim uttered a few phrases that are remarkably similar to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Germany propaganda minister.

Goebbelss speech, delivered in 1933, was one of several in which he called on artists to back the Nazi vision. Art, he said, needed to be a tool free of sentimentalism that served the states aims, according to a biography of Goebbels written by the German historian Peter Longerich.

Mr. Alvims address included verbatim some phrases from Goebbelss, including an exhortation to make art in the next decade heroic. It also includes the warning that Goebbels gave that if art doesnt rise to the national moment, it will cease to exist.

In the background, Richard Wagners opera Lohengrin is playing, a work Hitler described in his autobiography as one that had been decisive in his life, according to the newspaper Folha de So Paulo.

Announcing a $4.8 million investment in the countrys national arts grant program, Mr. Alvim, a veteran theater director, made clear the government would fund works that hew to Mr. Bolsonaros worldview, works that pay homage to historical figures and emphasize conservative values.

The arts grants would support operas, theater productions, painting and sculpture exhibitions, works of literature and music compositions.

Mr. Alvim said Brazil needed a culture that doesnt destroy, but one that will save our youth.

When culture is sickened, people become sick as well, he said in a video recorded alongside the president, which was broadcast before the one that drew controversy.

By Friday morning, Goebbels and Nazi were trending topics on Twitter in Brazil as users shared news stories and memes expressing horror.

Mr. Alvim initially dismissed the criticism, accusing leftists of reading too much into his words, and saying in a radio interview that his aides chose the passages from Goebbelss speech when he asked them to search on Google for speeches about nationalism and art.

But later he apologized to the Jewish community for what he called an involuntary mistake.

Mr. Bolsonaro said on Friday afternoon in a statement that despite Mr. Alvins apology, he decided that keeping him in the job was unsustainable. He added that the government repudiates totalitarian and genocidal ideologies.

Several politicians, including the speaker of the House, had called for Mr. Alvims immediate ouster while some prominent figures close to Mr. Bolsonaro questioned his sanity.

Jos Antonio Dias Toffoli, the president of the Supreme Court, said in a statement that Mr. Alvims remarks deserved to be repudiated with vehemence, adding that they were offensive to Brazilian people, especially the Jewish community.

Olavo de Carvalho, a Virginia-based writer and YouTuber from Brazil who is known for peddling conspiracy theories and informing Mr. Bolsonaros thinking on societal and intellectual matters, was also critical of Mr. Alvim.

It may be early to judge, he wrote on Facebook. But Roberto Alvim may not be of sound mind. Well see.

Germanys embassy in Brazil condemned the speech in a post on Twitter, saying that it opposed any attempt to banalize or glorify an era that brought infinite suffering for humanity.

Letcia Casado contributed reporting from Braslia.

Read more:

Brazils Top Culture Official Fired Over Speech Evoking Nazi Propaganda - The New York Times

CONCORD A state senator said its time to ask New Hampshire voters whether they want to make flag burning an unlawful expression of free speech.

Sen. Harold French, R-Franklin, presented to the Senate Election Laws and Municipal Affairs Committee Thursday a proposed amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution (CACR 19) to make it illegal to burn a flag except as a respectable means of disposing of a worn or damaged one.

People had the right to express themselves, but as I got older I realized it was not just the flag; it was a symbol of unity. As all of us look at that flag, we see the same thing and that is the unity the flag brings to us, French said.

There are other instances that we prohibit things which could be considered freedom of speech. This is just one other I would like to add to that.

Jeanne Hruska, political director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, said even if adopted by voters, the law would last as long as it took a judge to examine it and conclude it violated the U.S. Constitution.

This amendment is very much about speech and protest, including peaceful protest, since incitement to violence is already illegal, Hruska said. Burning the flag may be offensive speech to many, but it is the kind of speech that is most important to protect if free speech is to retain its meaning.

The first flag protection amendment was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protests against the Vietnam War.

Over time, 48 of the 50 states adopted their own flag protection laws, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 struck them all down as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling.

When Congress adopted another law in response, the court voted 5-4 to knock that one down, too.

Congress then spent nearly the next decade trying to get the necessary two-thirds vote to amend the U.S. Constitution. The movement passed the U.S. House but finally died in the U.S. Senate by a single vote in 2006.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens in this country, said liberal activist Nancy Brennan of Weare.

Although I have no desire to burn the American flag, I do understand why some people may feel so disenfranchised, so angry about something that they burned or desecrated the flag.

The hearing was sparsely attended, though six senators have signed on to the amendment, including first-term Sen. Jon Morgan, D-Brentwood.

The hearing featured some spirited debate.

I have to say I feel the Supreme Court was wrong-headed in that decision, said Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead and a Coast Guard veteran.

We have had numerous people who died under the flag. Its a desecration to them that others are allowed to burn the flag.

Sen. Tom Sherman, D-Rye, said many in his family fought against the Nazis in World War II, including an uncle whom he never met.

I find it absolutely abhorrent to burn the American flag. My family has been here since the origins of the nation. Can I put in a constitutional amendment next year to end hate speech? What is going to stop us from stopping this kind of speech? Sherman asked rhetorically.

Sen. Melanie Levesque, D-Brookline, tried to stay in the political median for now.

Our freedom of speech is also very important. Without weighing in here I can understand both sides, Levesque said.

Amendments to the State Constitution require at least a three-fifths majority vote in the House of Representatives and the State Senate.

Then,without the governors involvement, the question automatically would be placed on the November 2020 ballot, requiring a two-thirds vote to be adopted.

See more here:

Franklin Republican wants to make it a crime to burn symbol of liberty - The Union Leader

Quillen explores how the world might look to college studentsand its not always pretty. Instantaneous access to information has raised the stakes of expression, creating a world in which free speech can mutate into violence in the blink of an eye.

For young people who have known no world but this one, the line between speech that invites violence and violent criminal acts seems paper thin, she writes.

If we want to engage our students, rather than belittle them, we might consider changing the subject from free speech per se to how words lead to action in the world.

Quillen asks readers to focus on our collective vulnerability to tribalism and how technology has made us less likely to connect directly.

Such a change of subject would invite all of us to pose timely political and ethical questions, as many college professors nationwide are doing she writes. In fact, freedom of speech has a better chance of flourishing if weon the left and the rightwould lay down our arms and listen.

The op-ed is available in its entirety at The Hill

Continued here:

Quillen Op-Ed: 'How to Protect Free Speech in the Age of Mass Shootings' - Davidson News

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.

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Free speech and Liberty of the press are essential to the security of Freedom in a State: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

Article 22, New Hampshire Constitution.

On Wednesday, Jan. 15, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee will hold the first hearing on HB 1157: An Act relative to liability of New Hampshire news media for failure to update stories on criminal proceedings.

While we agree that it is fair journalistic practice to update stories about criminal proceedings, the bill clearly violates the United States and New Hampshire constitutions and should therefore be rejected.

To our knowledge, the vast majority of professional news outlets in New Hampshire, including Seacoast Media Group, already voluntarily do what this bill seeks to compel through use of government force.

If a news outlet reports criminal charges against an individual and is then notified in writing that those charges were dropped, dismissed, resulted in a finding of not guilty or were subsequently annulled, every outlet in the state already either updates the full story or, in the case of police logs, attaches a note updating the cases disposition.

HB 1157 seeks to compel the news media to take these actions and, if they fail to do so shall result in the liability of the New Hampshire news media organization for any damages incurred by the person caused by such failure.

Having conceded that news outlets should report the dispositions of criminal cases after reporting the initial charges, we strongly oppose this bill on the grounds that it violates constitutional press freedoms upheld time and again by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as state courts.

Controlling the press allows a government to control a people by allowing them to know only what the government wants them to know and preventing them from knowing what the government doesnt want them to know. There is a reason why Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and thousands of other internet sites have been blocked by the so-called Great Firewall of China.

The founders of our state and nation explicitly included strong constitutional press protections. Having just thrown off the repressive yoke of Great Britain and its monarchy, they wanted to prevent the rise of a new tyrant and felt a free press was the best protection because an informed public would have the information it needed to hold government accountable. For this reason, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787: were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

A First Amendment case relevant to HB 1157, brought to the attention of the New Hampshire Press Association by Matthew Saldaa from the law firm Bernstein and Shur, is Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 1974, in which the Supreme Court ruled a Florida law mandating that newspapers provide every political candidate a right to reply to negative articles in the paper, violated the First Amendment.

In the decision, Associate Justice Byron White wrote: the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital issues will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed. The press would be unlicensesd because, in Jeffersons words, (w)here the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. Any other accommodation any other system that would supplant private control of the press with the heavy hand of government intrusion would make the government the censor of what the people may read and know.

While we agree that media outlets should voluntarily report on the final disposition of crime stories they have published, we do not believe the remedy is for the New Hampshire House to pass an unconstitutional law. The remedy is for publishers to do what is fair and right and for readers to hold them accountable when they fail to do so.

Read the rest here:

Editorial: NH House should reject bill that violates freedom of the press - Seacoastonline.com

By Rick Rouan

The Columbus Dispatch

COLUMBUS, Ohio Government reports agree that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election, using sophisticated troll farms and disinformation campaigns to meddle in the selection of the next U.S. president.

But a full election cycle later, regulators, legal scholars and security experts are still trying to figure out how to fight it and where it will originate.

If you arent terrified, you arent paying attention, said Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The question is what, if anything, we can do about it.

Modern propaganda distributed across social media seeks to exhaust critical thinking and annihilate truth, Weintraub said during a panel discussion Friday at Ohio State Universitys Moritz College of Law.

In 2020, it wont just come from Russia, she said, noting that intelligence officials are expecting attacks from China, North Korea and others.

Stopping it from happening, though, is complicated, panelists said, because it pits the First Amendment against the need for regulations that would stop erosion of confidence in elections.

The dilemma we face is that any measures we take to counter disinformation have negative consequences for the freedom of speech said Yasmin Dawood, a law professor at the University of Toronto who has studied Canadas approach to combating disinformation.

In 2018, Canada adopted regulations that prohibit publishing misleading information about the countrys elections administration arm and false information about candidates, party leaders and other public figures.

Those restrictions were narrow, though, Dawood said. For example, regulations on distributing false information about individuals were limited to their involvement in a crime, their citizenship, membership in a group and other factors.

If social media platforms adopted their own limitations, that would negate any concerns about government limiting free speech, Weintraub said. So far, though, they have taken little action to stop the disinformation that ran rampant during the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Leaving regulation to the private sector is unlikely to be enough, though, said William Marshall, law professor at the University of North Carolina.

Disinformation has real consequences in elections, he said, and that could be enough to swing the argument for government regulation. For example, distributing false information about the date of the election could suppress voter turnout; lies about a candidate could swing votes entirely.

I think all this false information just normalizes lies. We live in a world many people call post-truth that just accepts it, he said.

If confronted with stronger laws, Weintraub said, she does not believe the Supreme Court would block them while foreign actors are trying to get their tentacles into our political system.

I believe that the Supreme Court would uphold those laws. I dont believe that they would say that the Constitution is a suicide pact, she said.

Excerpt from:

Experts warn of foreign disinformation in 2020 election that could 'annihilate truth' - The Daily World

Montclair State University in New Jersey was hit with a lawsuit Wednesday challenging its policies regulating speech on campus.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) says the university's speech and permit policies stifle the free expression of ideas and unconstitutionally classifies campus student organizations based on viewpoint.

The lawsuit stems from an incident last September. Three students affiliated with Young Americans for Liberty dressed in orange prisoner-like jumpsuits and held up signs expressing support for gun-free zones. As pretend criminals, their message was clear that gun-free zones only aid lawbreakers, and harm law-abiding citizens.According to a press release on the lawsuit, the ADF says the students were peacefully expressing their ideas in a common outdoor area of the campus when a campus police officer forced them to stop. They were told if they wanted to speak on campus they had first to obtain permission at least two weeks in advance and that the dean's office would assign them a time and place to speak.

The lawsuit alleges "this two-week requirement imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on all students throughout the entire campus," and allows the university to deny or delay a student's request for a permit for any reason.

"A public university is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, but that marketplace can't function if officials impose burdensome restraints on speech or if they can selectively enforce those restraints against disfavored groups," said ADF Legal Counsel Michael Ross.

In an e-mailed statementto northjersey.com, University President Susan Cole said Montclair State "is absolutely and unequivocally committed to freedom of speech" and the exchange of ideas. But, she wrote, that must be balanced with "the right of all members of the university community to be able to engage without disruption" in school activities.

"No member of the university community is subject to any limitation or penalty for demonstrating or assembling with others for the expression of his/her viewpoint," Cole wrote.

ADF counsel Ross disagrees. "Policing peaceful student expression that the university doesn't favor is blatantly unconstitutional and directly opposed to the mission of public universities to encourage and allow the discussion of ideas," Ross said.

The lawsuit takes aim at two other campus policies it says violates students' rights.

One policy gives the university's Student Government Association (SGA) complete discretion to rank student organizations into "classes." Young Americans for Liberty is ranked as a Class IV group, which means it is considered "entry-level," and unlike higher-ranked groups it can not request funding from the student fees its members and all students are required to pay unless it raises outside matching funds. The Student Government Association has sole discretion to determine if a student group is entry-level or "meets the needs of a very specific and unique interest of the campus community." This, the lawsuit alleges, is a criterion based on viewpoint and content of speech and is, therefore, unconstitutional. Young Americans for Liberty is still designated as "entry-level" even though it's been registered as a group since 2018.

In a statement to northjersey.com, the SGA says its policies and procedures for student organizations are "viewpoint neutral," and that the lawsuit "mischaracterizes" them.

The second school policy involves the university's Bias Education Response Taskforce. The lawsuit quotes the University as saying the Taskforce exists "to provide a well-coordinated and comprehensive response to incidents of intolerance and bias with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and national origin." It also has various sanctions against students whose speech it determines intolerant.

The lawsuit alleges the Taskforce guidelines for determining bias and prejudice are "vague and overbroad," and the fear of violating some vague standard stifles the expression of speech protected by the US Constitution. The ADF says the purpose of the Taskforce "is to suppress speech that may make others uncomfortable."

ADF attorneys filed the complaint called Young Americans for Liberty at Montclair State University v. The Trustees of Montclair State University with the US District Court for the District of New Jersey on Wednesday.

More:

Montclair State Univ. Sued for 'Unconstitutional' Speech Policy and Favoring One Student Group Over Another Based on Their Beliefs - CBN News

LGBTQ+ leaders in Sheffield have called for the cancellation of an upcoming UK tour by Donald Trumps most prominent evangelical ally, claiming he promotes homophobic views.

Franklin Graham, the influential son of the late American preacher Billy Graham, has previously said he believes gay marriage is a sin.

Graham is currently on a tour of Florida which has attracted protests from thousands of other Christians and is to tour eight UK cities later this year. He is due to visit Sheffield Arena in June as part of his tour, which is not open to the public.

Sheffield City Trust, which runs the venue, has said it does not endorse Grahams views but supports the right to free speech.

But LGBT+ campaigners have written to the trust calling for the visit to be cancelled.

The letter, signed by 22 representatives of the citys LGBTQ+ community, says: Franklin Graham has repeatedly publicly promoted his homophobic beliefs, including but not limited to branding homosexuality a sin

We believe that these statements far exceed freedom of speech and are direct hate speech and incitement to violence against LGBTQ+ communities and individuals, which should not be welcomed in our city or anywhere else.

David Grey, chairman of the trust, said he had met faith groups from the city and taken advice from South Yorkshire police regarding the visit but supported the right to free speech and freedom of expression whilst promoting equality and freedom from hatred and abuse.

He agreed there was a potential conflict between these two moral stances, but added that the event was not open to the public and if individuals or groups arent breaking the law then their right to speak freely should be respected.

Heather Paterson, LGBT+ chair at the Equality Hub Network in the city and one of the signatories to the letter, said: While Sheffield City Trust defend their position on the grounds of free speech, hate speech is not free speech. Grahams rhetoric demonising some of our most vulnerable communities, referring to us as the enemies of civilisation and advocating for the harmful and abusive practice of conversion therapy inspires and encourages these attacks. As a community we stand together to reject his attempts to spread further hatred and division in our city.

A demonstration against Grahams appearance, Sheffield Against Hate Demo: Say No To Franklin Graham, is being held on 25 January at the Forge International Sports Centre in the city.

Earlier this month councillors wrote a cross-party letter to organisers of Grahams event warning that the visit could lead to protests.

And in November the bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox, said Grahams rhetoric was inflammatory and represented a risk to the social cohesion of Sheffield.

Grey added: The Franklin Graham event is part of a series of closed events across the country. These events are not open to the public. Other religious groups hire the arena for similar closed events and we are happy to accommodate them as long as the law isnt being broken.

As an organisation, we take matters such as this immensely seriously. We are aware of views from some of our citys councillors and understand their concerns. [But] it is the view of the board of trustees that freedom of speech, and the ability to disagree with someones beliefs, are to be encouraged. If individuals or groups arent breaking the law then their right to speak freely should be respected.

The tour during May and June will also include venues in Glasgow, Newcastle, Milton Keynes, Liverpool, Cardiff, Birmingham and London.

Graham said: Im not coming to Sheffield to preach against anyone. Im coming to tell everyone about a God who loves them.

The gospels life-saving truth and power applies to everyone in this great city.

Read the original post:

Sheffield Arena urged to cancel event by 'homophobic' Trump ally - The Guardian

This post was last updated on January 14th, 2020 at 12:41 pm

For a universal fact, when two fight, only one wins. In a conflict with freedom of speech, nationalism won in the United States, when an adjunct professor was fired from a Massachusetts college over a Facebook post, where he sarcastically suggested Iran to pick sites in the US to bomb.

The Babson College professor, Asheen Phansey described the post on his personal Facebook page a joke, in which he wrote that the Iranian supreme leader should tweet a list of 52 sites of beloved American cultural heritage that he would bomb. A spokeswoman for him, Judy Rakowsky stated that he suggested the Mall of America in Minnesota and a Kardashian residence as targets.

Phanseys post came in response to President Donald Trumps threat to target Iranian cultural sites, warning it of a retaliation against America for killing their General Qassem Soleimani. However, the idea was ward off by the Pentagon because of the laws of armed conflict.

The Babson professor deleted the post later, but after it was captured in a screenshot and spread across the social media with the colleges contact details tagged along.

One most shared tweet stated, Why does @Babson College have an America-hating terrorist supporter on their payroll. Ask them!

The remarks were soon learned by the college, which later suspended Phansey. Based on the results of the investigation, the staff member is no longer a Babson College employee, the school said.

In a statement issued, the college said it condemned any type of threatening words and actions condoning violence.

This particular post from a staff member on his personal Facebook page clearly does not represent the values and culture of Babson College, it added.

Professor Phansey stated that he regretted his bad attempt at humor.

As an American, born and raised, I was trying to juxtapose our cultural sites with ancient Iranian churches and mosques, he said, adding that he was opposed to violence. I am sorry that my sloppy humor was read as a threat.

Asheen Phansey expressed his disappointment over the colleges decision to fire him just because people willfully misinterpreted a joke I made to friends on Facebook. The professor received his masters degree in business administration in 2008 from the same college, which is a private business school in Wellesley, Massachusetts.

Phansey said he expected that his college would have defended and supported my right to free speech. He continued, Beyond my own situation, I am really concerned about what this portends for our ability as Americans to engage in political discourse without presuming the worst about each other.

It does appear to a terrible decision sending a critical message to academics and staff members across the US, of misinterpreting a joke and curbing free speech.

Post Views: 112

Read this article:

Free Speech Left for Space as Professor Fired Over a Political Joke - Ask the Truth

It is difficult to take seriously the governments claim that it respects Hongkongers fundamental rights and freedoms, when officials find it so difficult to talk honestly, or even accurately, about them.

Consider a story the other day which started like this: Education Secretary Kevin Yeung has denied infringing upon teachers freedom of speech by penalising them for what are regarded as inappropriate comments on social media.

Kevin Yeung. Photo: RTHK Screenshot.

This paragraph was entirely borne out by the ensuing story, and indicates a truly shocking state of denial or ignorance.

Now watch closely Kevin: inappropriate comment + penalty = infringement of right to comment. It may be a justified infringement, a lawful infringement, or a trivial infringement, but infringement it is. Denying this fundamental feature of the situation suggests that we have a Secretary for Education who should not be teaching in a kindergarten.

And of course this is true. Reputable educators are strangely reluctant to join what its leaders laughably call the government team. Mr Yeung joined the ranks of the political and (supposedly) accountable secretariat after a blameless career in the full-time civil service.

He was announcing a rather sordid exercise in which the Education Bureau is pressuring school principals to take action against teachers with political views which the government disapproves of. That is not, of course, quite how they put it.

Principals are required to investigate complaints about teachers, whether they concern the teachers work or not. And then?

Yeung said that if a school believed the teacher did nothing wrong the bureau may consider the attitude and stance of the school and principal to be problematic. If we believe a principal is unfit to discharge their duties, we can dismiss them as principals. Every principal is appointed by thePermanent Secretary for Education. We have the legal power to do so, but we will be very careful to exercise this power, he said.If the situation is serious to the extent we believe the principal cannot even be a teacher, we can cancel their teacher qualifications, he said.

Photo: GovHK.

In other words, dear principal, if you are an insufficiently enthusiastic participant in the Inquisition, you will not only lose your job as a school principal, but will be disqualified from teaching of any kind.

It is appalling that the education officials are prepared to make such spectacular sacrifices on the altar of political correctness. Hunting for inappropriate verbiage on teachers social media feeds is a very minor part of a principals job. Good principals are hard to find and removing one is disruptive. Have we no sense of proportion?

In his latest defence of this policy Mr Yeung seemed to be offering a sort of way out. He told the Legislative Council that schools must provide a reason if they dont investigate complaints against teachers who are accused of being unprofessional over their activities linked to the ongoing anti-government protests.

So let us see if we can provide some helpful suggestions. Teachers who post things on-line outside office hours are still citizens of Hong Kong and enjoy the right of freedom of speech as provided in the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Both these instruments provide that restrictions must be provided by law. They do not make exceptions for teachers, or any other professional groups.

So the fact that some members of the public think a comment is inappropriate, or that the Education Bureau agrees with them, is not relevant. The complainant should be told that if he or she believes the offending comment is illegal it should be referred to the police. If it is believed to be unprofessional it can be referred to the relevant professional council.

If it is in neither of those two categories then it is an exercise of the constitutional right to free speech which principals, like the rest of us, are supposed to protect.

The Education Bureau. File Photo: Apple Daily.

No doubt this will result in no action being taken about some postings with which many of us would profoundly disagree. This is a bearable outcome. The idea that children who can barely be persuaded by bribes or threats to crack a textbook are voluntarily spending their free time looking at their teachers social media posts is outlandish.

It seems most of the complaints are about social media posts, but some are of inappropriate teaching materials. Now clearly the principal is perfectly entitled to take an interest in what is going on in his or her classrooms. It is his responsibility to ensure that teachers are fulfilling reasonable expectations of teaching content and methods.

Principals will, one hopes, be more aware of the difficulties facing teachers in the current atmosphere than the complainants are. Students are expected and encouraged to take an interest in current events, to read newspapers and to discuss their contents.

Teachers will, of course, be well aware that this is not an opportunity to impose their views on students or even, indeed, to expound them. One tries to stick to the facts. But sooner or later someone is going to raise a hand and say Sir, what do you think?

At this point almost anything the teacher says will offend someone, if accurately reported, and if inaccurately reported as is quite likely may offend a lot of people. But we would not, I hope, expect him to lie.

Photo: Kevin Cheng/United Social Press.

The depressing thing about all this is that the government has clearly succumbed to the bombardment of complaints from the pro-Beijing corner that all our recent travails are a result of the failings of the Hong Kong education system.

In the more lurid versions of this, which you can find in the English-language version of the China Daily, it is traced right back to kindergarten where, a recent op-ed writer complained, children had been told that in China the rivers were polluted and in America, they were not.

Similar nutty stuff proliferates. One charming suggestion was that the local universities could be closed. All existing students should be sent to mainland universities where they would be straightened out.

By an interesting coincidence, the Economist reported only last week on a piece of research which set out to test the theory that educated people in America tend to be democrats because of their exposure to four years in liberal-infested universities.

Not so. Students political views were carefully tracked over the four years and did not change a bit. Nor is this surprising. Most university courses offer no opportunities for political indoctrination even if the teacher is so unscrupulous as to attempt it.

This lump of scientific evidence will, of course, have no effect on people who wish to believe that the absence of national education is the root of all evils. But this sort of rhetorical overkill threatens to turn a civic dispute into a civil war.

Photo: Apple Daily.

The most distressing recent story was of a young lady who barred her father from her own wedding because he was a policeman. It may be that the gentleman concerned is a tactless martinet who was, as they say, asking for it. Still, it seemed to me that this was the sort of decision which might lead to bitter regret in a year or twos time.

Some of the published comments from the other side also look like a prolific cause for retrospective embarrassment. It seems that if the level of violence is declining the level of verbal abuse ought to subside a bit too.

The other night I caught a government ad or Announcement of Public Interest as they call it for peace and quiet. It started by appropriating the oldCampaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) symbol. This was an error: the CND logo incorporates the semaphore signals for ND, meaning nuclear disarmament, which is hardly relevant here.

The ad went on to say Say no to violence, a bit rich from people who are so generous with tear gas and other chemicals. When governments say no to violence they are merely seeking to preserve their monopoly of it.

Then we had Give peace a chance, in what I fear is not quite the sort of context which John Lennon intended when he penned thephrase. But still, a worthy sentiment.

Mr Yeung needs to get with the programme. If the government is losing on the streets then opening a new front in local classrooms is not the way to peace, only to conflict of a different kind.

Read the original here:

Join the Inquisition or lose your job: wasn't Hong Kong meant to give peace a chance? - Hong Kong Free Press

In a case testing free speech restrictions, the state Court of Appeals recently reversed the convictions of a man accused of trying to intimidate two city of Oak Harbor employees in 2017.

The ruling was filed Dec. 30 as a published opinion, which means it established precedent and can be cited in the future.

A jury in Island County Superior Court found Jeremy Dawley guilty of two counts of intimidating a public servant, but the appeals court ruled the statute is constitutionally overbroad because it restricts a substantial amount of free speech. The justices noted that a law that restricts free speech is subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests of the government.

No matter the motive behind an individuals attempt to influence a public servants vote, opinion, decision or other official action as a public servant, the opinion states, such pure political speech is at the core of the First Amendment and necessarily subject to heightened protection.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington filed an amicus brief in support of Dawley, arguing that the statute for intimidating a public servant criminalizes political speech.

Criticism of public officials is a fundamental exercise of political speech rights protected by the First Amendment and by the Washington Constitution, the brief states.

Dawley, who had been discharged from the Navy after suffering a brain injury, had a history of being antagonistic toward police officers and acting strangely. He was preoccupied with traffic complaints, making 144 calls to the emergency dispatch center in a three-week period, and became upset when officers practiced discretion in enforcement.

In rambling conversations with police officers and the city attorney, Dawley made comments about using Green Beret tactics and owning a sniper rifle. He told the police chief he would give out the Oak Harbor city attorneys personal information to rapists and violent offenders.

Dawley was then arrested after he made public records requests for information about sexual and violent offenders, then went to the city attorneys office.

In arguments at the appeals court, Chief Criminal Deputy Eric Ohme with the Island County Prosecutors Office conceded that Dawley did not make a true threat, which is one of the few categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. State law has 10 definitions for what constitutes a threat, but a true threat is about violence; its a statement meant to frighten or intimidate someone into believing they will be seriously harmed.

Ohme argued that the statute was constitutional because it doesnt criminalize pure speech, but that it contains two requirements that must be met for convictions, namely a threat and the intent to influence a government employees action.

In addition, he argued that the phone calls made to city staff should be considered private speech, which is subject to less constitutional scrutiny than speech in the public domain, that the law affects only a narrow class of people and the government has a compelling interest in limiting speech meant to intimidate public employees.

In the opinion, the justices found that the intimidating a public servant statute can be saved with a jury instruction that limits it to true threats alone.

The appeals court decision means Dawleys conviction is overturned, though he has already served a jail sentence and moved to Eastern Washington. Court records indicate that he has been arrested this year in two felony cases. In one case, he faces charges that include second-degree assault, assault of a law enforcement officer and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle; the other involves malicious mischief charges.

A judge ordered that Dawley receive a competency evaluation from a mental health provider, court documents indicate.

The rest is here:

Appeals Court reverses conviction in freedom of speech case - Whidbey News-Times

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Every holiday season, the Magoti family comes together from all corners of Tanzania and travels up-country to their ancestral home in Bunda, Tanzania.

This year, they spent Christmas Eve and Christmas at church. Usually, they do a big family dinner and a Magoti family meeting the day after Christmas. But this year, they didn't do any of that. They were too out of spirits.

Tito Magoti, who works as a human rights advocate, was missing from the family festivities. Tito, 26, a program associate with the Legal and Human Rights Center (LHRC) in Dar es Salaam, has spent the holiday season hundreds of miles away in Segerea Remand Prison.

Tito's arrest and detention signals a growing crackdown on free expression in Tanzania, according to Oryem Nyeko, a researcher at Human Rights Watch.

"We've been doing research in Tanzania for the past year and a half or so and observed a very dramatic slide in terms of the basic respect for human rights and issues like freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and civil society in the past five or so years since President [John] Magufuli was in power," said Nyeko, who recently authored a report on the threats to independent media and civil society in the country.

On Friday, Dec. 20, the morning before Tito was planning to trek home, he was out shopping for a new phone in Dar es Salaam when five men grabbed him, pulled him into a car and sped off.

"I was in my office, and I got a call from my other brother that my brother was missing," said Edwin Magoti, Tito's older brother who works as an assistant lecturer.

Alarmed, Tito's family immediately called his boss, Anna Henga, who directs LHCR. She quickly mobilized a Twitter campaign the same day to tweet out the hashtag #BringBackTito.

"We thought it is abduction. So, we said, 'Tito is missing, he has been abducted. [We] made a lot of noise: Bring Tito back, Bring Tito back,'" Henga said.

Hours later, the police released a message: "Tito Magoti has not been abducted," Dar es Salaam's police Cmdr. Lazaro Mambosasa told reporters. "He has been arrested along with three other people."

The announcement left Tito Magoti's family and colleagues even more confused. Tito Magoti is an activist, not a criminal, they maintained. He educates Tanzanians about their rights, has a large social media following and is the type of person who gets upset when he sees other people not doing their jobs, according to his family.

If Tito wasn't abducted, where was he? If the police had arrested him, what were the charges?

What should have been a cheerful holiday weekend turned into a desperate search for Tito. For more than 90 hours, no one knew his whereabouts. The Twitter hashtag had gone from #BringBackTito to #FreeTito.

"My team, we moved to various police stations to just look, or to check where Tito was arrested," Henga said. "But it was all in vain."

On Monday, LHRC and other human rights organizations sued Cmdr. Mambosasa and the attorney general in Tanzania's High Court. They demanded the police either release Tito or charge him, in line with Tanzania's constitution.

The police followed through the next day, charging Tito and Theodory Giyan, an IT expert, with three counts of money laundering and organized crime. It was Christmas Eve.

The family was devastated. Everyone knew what it meant to be charged with economic crimes in Tanzania. It means no bail, a drawn-out trial, and, in Tito's case, no Christmas or New Year's celebrations.

"They are charged with very difficult offenses, like criminal, economic, and organized crimes. In Tanzania, those crimes are not bailable. So, they tell them you have done money laundering or you are a terrorist, just to tell you there is no bail," Henga said.

She, like many human rights defenders in Tanzania, views economic charges as a tool for the government to silence critics.

In July, investigative journalist Erick Kabendera was taken from his home by six men, who were only later identified as plainclothes police officers. Like Tito, Kabendera was charged with money laundering and tax evasion.

At the time, the United States and United Kingdom embassies in Tanzania expressed concern over the "steady erosion of due process" in the country.

Yet, six months later, Kabendera remains in prison after a series of delayed court hearings. Kabendera, like Tito, is spending the holidays behind bars.

Since his election in 2015, President John Magufuli has introduced a spade of new laws and policies that have restricted and regulated freedom of speech in the country. The police have also targeted those who are openly critical of the government, from Magufuli's political opponents to civil society groups like LHRC.

"For now, people aren't very free to express themselves. Because if they are vocal and express themselves, it happens like Kabendera and Tito," Henga said. "They get arrested, they get tortured."

The crackdown on civil liberties under Magufuli has put Tanzania at odds with its partners and allies.

In November 2018, the World Bank withdrew $300 million in loans to Tanzania over the government's policy on expelling pregnant girls from school. That same month, Denmark withheld nearly $10 million in aid over disagreements over anti-gay rhetoric and other human rights.

While both have since resumed sending loans and aid to Tanzania, the future of civil liberties in the country remains in question, especially as it heads toward a general election in early 2020.

Nyeko noted, however, that the chill in human rights is not limited to Tanzania. "I think globally there's [a] continued restriction of civil spaces around the world. It's reflected in Tanzania and Uganda. Governments, in very similar ways, are passing laws that justify the restricted space."

Tito's brother, Edwin, finds the restrictions on civil liberties in Tanzania surprising. He never thought that his brother's advocacy could put him in danger and certainly not get him arrested.

Tito's hearing has been set for Jan. 7, but some worry he might face the same legal limbo as Kabendera. For his family, this could mean an endless cycle of waiting and more missed holidays.

"It won't be the same because Tito will be missing There's no way it can be the same," Edwin Magoti said.

This article originally appeared at PRI's The World.

Here is the original post:

The war on free speech in Tanzania - The Week Magazine

AMES Iowa State University is under legal fire, as accusations of infringement on students freedom of speech have brought on a lawsuit.

Speech First, a non-profit working to to fight restrictions on free speech at colleges and universities across the U.S., filed a lawsuit against Iowa State Thursday. The organization says Iowa State has created an elaborate investigative and enforcement regime designed to chill speech concerning political and social issues of public concern.

Speech First is asking the court to rule three policies Iowa State has as unconstitutional: a ban on chalking, a prohibition on student emails related to campaigns and elections, and a Campus Climate Reporting System.

Iowa State gave a statement to Local 5 on the lawsuit at hand, saying freedom of speech is an important aspect of the universitys character.

As a public institution, Iowa State University fully embraces its role as a First Amendment campus and is deeply committed to constitutional protections of free expression, a university spokesperson told Local 5.

The protections afforded by the First Amendment and similar provisions in the Iowa Constitution are core values of the university and are foundational to the universitys mission to create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place. Constitutional free speech provisions are designed to establish and protect the free marketplace of ideas that is a fundamental characteristic of university life.

Go here to read the rest:

Non-profit sues Iowa State University on grounds of free speech infringement - Local 5 - weareiowa.com

British comedian Ricky Gervais stressed the importance of free speech in a new interview Thursday, saying that while he strives to make his jokes bulletproof, he also believes that offending people is collateral damage in comedy.

Mr. Gervais, who is hosting the Golden Globe Awards for the fifth time on Sunday, told The Hollywood Reporter that he has no plans of watering down his material for the politically correct masses.

People like the idea of freedom of speech until they hear something they dont like, he said. So theres still a pressure, but that doesnt mean Im going to water it down or back down and not say what I want. Its just another form of what weve been through many, many times it used to be called P.C. I think those things start off with very good intention and then theyre mugged.

Its a good thing to not be racist and sexist and homophobic, but its not a good thing to not be allowed to make jokes about those things, because you can tell a joke about race without being racist, he continued. Im happy to play by the rules. Its just that the 200 million people watching have different rules. Thats the plight. When people say, He crossed the line, I say, I didnt draw a line, you did. Its relative. Its subjective.

Mr. Gervais came under fire for his 2016 performance at the Globes after he cracked a joke using Caitlyn Jenners former name, Bruce, and mocked Jenners driving in reference to a fatal crash in which the former Olympian was involved. Mr. Gervais said Thursday that he is not transphobic and that his joke was misunderstood.

I can justify the jokes, but I get it, he said. Some people, when you deal with contentious issues or taboo subjects, the very mention of them is the sacrilege. Thats why they stay taboo. People straight away, particularly with a comedian, if youre joking about a subject, they think youre anti it as opposed to pro it. Ive tried to explain this in [the Netflix special] Humanity. Its an occupational hazard of being outspoken.

I think offense is the collateral damage of free speech, and its no reason not to have free speech, he added. Thats what Id say its the lesser of two evils. Having free speech and some people getting upset by it is the lesser of two evils because not having free speech is horrendous.

Mr. Gervais said hes trying to write bulletproof material for this years Globes so that it can stand the test of time 10 years from now.

Kevin Hart [lost] his job [as Oscars host] for 10-year-old tweets that he said he was sorry about and deleted at the time, he noted. So theres more pressure on making [the jokes bulletproof]. Its the world [watching]. This isnt me in a comedy club.

Read the original here:

Ricky Gervais: 'Offense is the collateral damage of free speech' - Washington Times

Major spoilers for Season 3 Episode 7 of 'Anne with an E' ahead

"Freedom of speech is a human right." This the unifying theme of 'A Strong Effort of the Spirit of Good', which marks Season 3 Episode 7 of 'Anne with an E', and it is hard to not feel empowered by this particular story.

In the previous Episode 6 of the series, we saw how Josie (Miranda McKeon) was harassed by her beau Billy (Christian Martyn), who then went on to tarnish her reputation in town. Anne (Amybeth McNulty), who quickly caught on with what was going on, stood up to Billy but ended up stepping on the wrong foot of everyone gathered at the dance floor after the County Fair. She also unwittingly embarrassed Josie, who ran out almost immediately.

Further, Anne decides that the only way to convey how Josie has been wronged is to write an Op-ed about the incident, wherein she made a bold claim that women are full beings on their own, as opposed to being complete only with a man by her side. Unfortunately, the Town Council was not forgiving of this claim and went on to demand that the school paper be shut down or run exclusively by the standards they have set, but in doing so they exposed the whole town to their prejudice and their chauvinism.

The whole school is angry with Anne, but for a few friends, including Gilbert (Lucas Jade Zumann), who convince the rest of the class to stand up for her. She leads a protest march, which also sees the adults joining in, including Marilla (Geraldine James).

The students demand that their voices be heard, and declare that "freedom of speech is a human right." Gilbert also tore the list of suggestions that the Town Council had for them. It is clear that these voices of dissent shook them because the episode closes with a bunch of men taking the printing machine out of the school, while one man using his cigarette to set the whole school on fire.

The episode is definitely one of the most inspiring ones on TV and has many teachable moments, especially when Anne chose to stand up for her biggest bully Josie. Even though they have a complicated friendship - with Josie even slapping her - Anne chose to focus on the bigger issue, a crime that is being committed against an entire gender. Josie standing up for herself, even though she had the option of making it all go away, was another great moment to watch.

'A Strong Effort of the Spirit of Good' also juxtaposes educated and uneducated men responding to harassment and feminism. While the Town Council, which consists of a group of influential men, continuously talked over their fellow member Rachel (Corrine Koslo) and is condescending towards her, Matthew (R. H. Thomson), who dropped out of school, said, "I reckon you've heard from about enough men on this topic," when asked his opinion by Marilla.

There is much to be learned from and enjoyed in this episode, and you can do it right away because all the episodes of 'Anne with an E' Season 3 have been added to Netflix.

See the original post here:

'Anne with an E' Season 3 Episode 7 Review: Free speech crusade makes it one of the best episodes on TV - MEAWW