Old ACLU Head Explains How Defending The Rights Of 15 Or 20 Nazis Actually Helped The Civil Rights Movement – Daily Caller

As 2020 comes to a close, the future of freedom of speech continues to be shaky. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), created to defend free expression, are shying away from their history in favor of a more political leaning, while cancel culture has become all the rage among both the media and the public.

In 2018, a leaked memo from the ACLU suggested that the organization was beginning to depart from its neutral, absolutist stance on freedom of speech. The memo wrote that a case could be declined if the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.

This is a far cry from the ACLU of the past, which defended the right for neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, in the late 1970s. Ira Glasser, ACLUs longtime-former executive director, still backs that decision, he told Reason in a podcast. In fact, he explained how defending this group of maybe 15 or 20 crazies helped the Civil Rights movement.

Skokie passed three new laws, Glasser explained in the podcast. One was a law banning anybody from marching in uniform. That was later used against the Jewish war veterans who wanted to have a parade. They passed a ban on speech that the town found offensive. If that law had ever been upheld, every town in the South could have banned civil rights marches, which they found offensive. And they passed an insurance bond requirement, just like Chicago.

This situation, according to Glasser, came about because of Skokies decisions. The union was already fighting for theMartin Luther King Jr. Association regarding insurance bonds the city of Chicago had decided that any group wishing to demonstrate in Marquette Park, home to tense clashes between opposing sides at the time, needed to put up a $250,000 insurance bond, Reason noted.

What the public sees is, Oh, theres the ACLU representing the Nazis,' Glasser explained. We never see it that way. We were trying to oppose the government using the insurance bond requirement to prevent free speech. For us it didnt matter who the client was, because we would use that client to strike down the bond requirements, and that would apply to everybody.

Glasser continued on to point out what happened after the ACLU won the case for the neo-Nazis Skokie organized a massive counter-demonstration and the neo-Nazis pulled out. Instead, they went to Marquette Park, because the Skokie case ultimately allowed for demonstrations in the Chicago park.

They [neo-Nazis] also confronted a massive counter-demonstration there that never would have happened without the case, Glasser said. It completely overwhelmed them; they couldnt be seen or heard. Right after that they fell apart.

The civil rights leader Martin Luther King (C) waves to supporters 28 August 1963 on the Mall in Washington DC (Washington Monument in background) during the March on Washington.( -/AFP via Getty Images)

Today, Glasser expressed concern about the direction many have taken in defending free expression.

He pointed out a moment where he spoke at a top law school and immediately noticed how diverse the crowd of students were. This, he said, was impossible back when he was fighting for free expression at the ACLU. After speaking to the group, Glasser recalled how multiple people got up to assert that their goals of social justice for blacks, for women, for minorities of all kinds were incompatible with free speech and that free speech was an antagonist.

But my experience was that free speech wasnt an antagonist. It was an ally. It was a critical ally, he told Reason before noting that various famous activists knew it. For people who today claim to be passionate about social justice to establish free speech as an enemy is suicidal.

Glassers concerns about the current climate and the future are not without merit: President-elect Joe Bidens transition leader for government-owned media companies, Richard Stengel, advocated for restricting free speech and making hate speech a crime in a 2019 Washington Post op-ed.

Meanwhile, cancel culture is becoming increasingly prevalent in suppressing free speech. Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, for example,had the cancel mob come for her after expressing her beliefs on biological sex earlier in 2020. (RELATED:Matthew McConaughey Rips Cancel Culture, Says You Cant Erase Someones Entire Existence)

Read more from the original source:

Old ACLU Head Explains How Defending The Rights Of 15 Or 20 Nazis Actually Helped The Civil Rights Movement - Daily Caller

Freedom of speech, yes, but not when it is intended to incite violence – Williamsport Sun-Gazette

We Americans treasure our freedom of speech. We defend it staunchly. As the old saying goes, we may not agree with what some people say, but we defend their right to say it.

Unless it is intended to incite violence to harm people otherwise. There, we draw the line.

In August 2019, a federal judge in Missoula, Montana, ruled that the publisher of a neo-Nazi website had stepped across that line. Andrew Anglin, founder and operator of The Daily Stormer website, had orchestrated a campaign intended to harass a Jewish family, Judge Dana Christensen decided in a lawsuit filed by a member of the family, Tanya Gersh, of Whitefish, Montana.

Anglin was ordered to pay a $14 million judgment to end the lawsuit.

Similar judgments have been made in other lawsuits against Anglin, in Ohio and Washington.

Now, Gershs lawyers are back in court, seeking new action against Anglin because he has not paid any of the $14 million judgment. In fact, the attorneys say, Anglin cannot be located. It seems he has gone underground in an attempt to dodge his financial obligations.

It may be that Anglin has left the country.

Anglin and others enamored of Nazism are entitled to their despicable beliefs. They are not entitled to harm others in any way, however.

To this point, it appears Anglin has not run afoul of criminal law. His court trouble has been in civil cases but attempting to dodge judges orders in such situations can be a criminal offense.

He should be hunted down and held accountable for any harm the courts find he has caused.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:

Freedom of speech, yes, but not when it is intended to incite violence - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

University passes Statement on Freedom of Speech with amendments – Varsity Online

The results of the Grace presented to Regent House were announced on Wednesday

The University has adopted a new Statement on Freedom of Speech following voting on a grace, a type of University legislation, presented to Regent House. The results were announced on Wednesday (09/12).

The statement, first drafted in March, replaces a previous version from 2016, and was passed with three amendments claiming to make it clearer and more liberal.

Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy who authored the amendments, told Varsity that the result of the vote confirmed that his colleagues are concerned about freedom of speech.

Although many academics are perhaps unwilling to speak openly about it, when they have the opportunity to reveal their preferences through a secret ballot, they did actually show that they care about freedom of speech and want it protected, he said.

The first amendment replaces the demand for respect for the opinions of others, made in the March statement, with tolerance.

The second amendment makes it explicit that the University can only stop a speaker from attending an event if they are likely to express unlawful speech and no reasonably practicable steps other than a refusal can be taken.

Meanwhile the final amendment states that the University may only restrict an event if it violates the law, falsely defames, constitutes a threat or harassment, is an invasion of privacy, or is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.

All three amendments passed with a majority of over 75%. The turnout was 32.1%.

Commenting on the outcome, Vice Chancellor Stephen Toope said: Freedom of speech is a right that sits at the heart of the University. This statement is a robust defence of that right...The statement also makes it clear that is unacceptable to censor, or disinvite, speakers whose views are lawful but may be seen as controversial.

Toopes comments were made despite criticisms of the March statement, which one group of academics called vague and authoritarian. Ahmed, however, emphasises that the policy was written in good faith, and the amendments were designed to make it clearer.

Cambridge will still be required to follow the Governments anti-radicalisation policy Prevent. Ahmed is critical of the legislation, but does not believe it should have been addressed in the statement.

I think Prevent is repressive, I think its been a disaster for interreligious relations. I think it causes self-censorship especially among the Muslim community but no doubt for others as well.

Whilst the Prevent duty does exist I dont see why we have to include it in something we are voluntarily signing up to, he continued.

The new statement and amendments received attention from the national press, as well as from students and staff. Roger Mosey, Master of Selwyn College, tweeted in support of the outcome of the vote, calling it a big moment for the rights of free speech in universities.

Meanwhile the Cambridge University Liberal Association were also pleased to see that an overwhelming number of fellows have backed the free speech amendments.

Professor Priyamvada Gopal was one of those critical of the new statement, tweeting that the news from Cambridge [...] is beyond tedious. Gopal, a Professor of Postcolonial Studies at the Faculty of English, faced abuse over the summer following falsified allegations of racism.

Gopal also accused the free speech (but not freedom to protest) brigade of getting ready to re-invite a certain Canadian self-help guru. It is understood by Varsity that Gopal is referring to academic Jordan Peterson.

It was later reported that right-wing journalist Toby Young, who is not affiliated with the University, would be writing to the Vice Chancellor asking for Peterson to receive an invitation.

An offer of a visiting fellowship made to Peterson by the Faculty of Divinity was rescinded in 2019. Petersons criticism of transgender rights and claims that white privilege is a Marxist lie have made him a controversial figure.

Gopal confirmed to Varsity her belief that the immediate call by Toby Young and his far-right organisation the Free Speech Union, members of whom were involved in organising the Cambridge vote, to invite Jordan Peterson to campus is a clear indication of the fact that this was never about free speech.

What is at stake is giving eugenicists, racists, and transphobes a prestigious platform, she continued.

Ahmed, however, explained that he has no idea who if anyone has re-invited Pearson, and pointed out that any re-invitation would have to be issued by the Faculty of Divinity. Ahmed did note that the Statement on Freedom of Speech and amendments will make it harder to disinvite people.

They will, I hope, have the result that the list of invited speakers remains wide, perhaps wider than before, he said.

The new statement was earlier criticised by the Cambridge branch of the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU). UCU believes that the policy is a result of political pressure and that the third amendment in particular threatens the possibility of events related to protest or industrial action.

In response to UCUs concerns, Ahmed notes that the right to protest is protected by Article 11 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] so there is no risk that the right to protest is going to be undermined by this.

He added that the kind of protest the University would not permit would be someone physically preventing somebody elses speaker event from going ahead.

Varsity is the independent newspaper for the University of Cambridge, established in its current form in 1947. In order to maintain our editorial independence, our print newspaper and news website receives no funding from the University of Cambridge or its constituent Colleges.

We are therefore almost entirely reliant on advertising for funding, and during this unprecedented global crisis, we expect to have a tough few months and years ahead.

In spite of this situation, we are going to look at inventive ways to look at serving our readership with digital content and of course in print too.

Therefore we are asking our readers, if they wish, to make a donation from as little as 1, to help with our running costs at least until this global crisis ends and things begin to return to normal.

Many thanks, all of us here at Varsity would like to wish you, your friends, families and all of your loved ones a safe and healthy few months ahead.

Go here to see the original:

University passes Statement on Freedom of Speech with amendments - Varsity Online

Report: 88 percent of universities restrict expression, nearly half restrict online speech – The Highland County Press

By Bethany Blankley The Center Squarehttps://www.thecentersquare.com/

A new national survey of 478 higher education institutions in the U.S. found that 9 in 10 restrict free speech in some capacity on campus but nearly half maintain policies that impermissibly restrict online speech.

The study was conducted by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at American colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

The report, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2021: The State of Free Speech on Our Nations Campuses, analyzed the written policies related to free speech at 478 top American colleges and universities. It found that 88 percent of those surveyed maintain policies that restrict, or could be interpreted to restrict, expression.

These policies have real-world consequences, Laura Beltz, FIREs senior program officer for policy reform and author of the report, said in a statement. Students and professors around the country face punishment for speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment or a schools free speech promises.

FIRE notes that restrictive speech policies extend beyond college campus property. With the advent of Zoom and online classes being conducted remotely, expression is being threatened online, FIRE found, in students own homes and on their own computers.

In New Jersey, a student at Stockton University faced possible suspension, a fine, and a mandatory social justice workshop after using a photo of President Donald Trump as his Zoom background while attending class online. By having a backdrop of the president, the university claimed other students said they felt offended, disrespected, and taunted. The student also posted a Patrick Henry-esque political post on Facebook in July, which prompted the university to charge the student with six policy violations, including harassment and cyberbullying, before FIREs public involvement caused the university to back down.

In June alone, 128 people came to FIRE asking for help when they believed their First Amendment rights were in jeopardy, the organization says.

In Colorado, a University of Colorado-Denver email policy bans students from sending or storing emails with messages that could be considered offensive."

The policy directs students not to use email to send any offensive or otherwise inappropriate matter. Listed examples include offensive comments about a range of topics, including race, gender, political beliefs, and even terrorism.

Im not sure what theyre trying to target by banning offensive comments about terrorism, but in any case, expression doesnt lose constitutional protection just because it has offended someone, Beltz argues.

The policy bans hyperlinks or other references to indecent or patently offensive websites and similar materials, holding students responsible for including a link or reference in an email that someone finds indecent.

While material that meets the stringent legal standard for obscenity is not constitutionally protected, expression cant be limited merely because someone has found it indecent, Beltz adds. Under CU Denvers policy, emailing a link to Cardi Bs WAP video or even a photo of Michelangelos David would be punishable. This absurd result is impermissible at a public university.

In New York, at Fordham University, a policy bans the use of any IT resource, including those off campus, to intimidate, insult, embarrass, or harass others.

Each of the 478 policies analyzed can be found in FIREs Spotlight Database. Schools are ranked according to color, with red indicating that the institution has the most restrictive policies, and green, the least. First Amendment protections analyzed include policies related to protest, online speech, harassment, and civility.

Among them, 21 percent received an overall red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.

More than half of red light-ranked schools are located in the District of Columbia and seven states: Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Roughly 12 percent of institutions analyzed, a total of 56, received green light ranking for having no policies in place that compromise student expression, according to the database.

Yellow light-ranked institutions represent the majority, 65 percent, which have policies in place that prohibit, or have an impermissible chilling effect on, constitutionally protected speech.

View post:

Report: 88 percent of universities restrict expression, nearly half restrict online speech - The Highland County Press

Government must walk a tightrope on hate speech plans – The Irish Times

The large scar on Bilal Ahmeds hand required thirty stitches to close up. Ten months on from the attack, it still causes him pain.

The stabbing was the culmination of years of harassment and often racist abuse from Christy Griffin who lived in an apartment near the takeaway on Clanbrassil Street and who was angry over the noise made by its customers at night.

I went 20 or 30 times to Garda station because it was just too much, recalled Ahmed who is from Punjab in Pakistan and has been in Ireland 17 years.

One night in April 2017, Griffin entered Chicken Hut, punched Ahmed and smashed up the premises with a hockey stick. He later told arresting garda: F**k those P**i c**ts .They will never make it to court. I will make sure of that you wait and see.

Griffin was released on bail and the abuse continued. In February 2020, he waited for Ahmed to close up the restaurant before attacking with him with a knife and stabbing him in the hand.

It was a racist attack, says Ahmed. When the case reached court two months ago Judge Karen OConnor seemed to agree, noting Griffins disgusting racist and abusive remarks to garda. She imposed a six-year sentence but suspended half of it and ordered Griffin to take part anti-racism education.

For Ahmed, the sentence was not nearly enough. I complained so many times about him. I know he received six years but he will only be in jail for three.

Ahmed says only about 2 per cent of people are Irish racist. But he still feels less safe here after the attack.

Judge OConnor was constrained in sentencing Griffin because, unlike many European countries, Ireland does not have any hate crime laws. At best, judges can take racist motives into account when sentencing but this is an informal and ill-defined process.

A broad-ranging piece of Government legislation due to be introduced next year aims to change that. Under the plan, details of which are due to be announced today, crimes such as criminal damage and assault will attract significantly tougher punishments if they are found to have a bigoted element, including racism, homophobia, transphobia or anti-disability sentiment.

It will be a high bar to prove a hate crime and juries will be able to downgrade one to an ordinary crime if they feel the hate element was not proven. For example, if someone is accused of a racist assault, a jury might decide an assault happened, but that it was not racist.

This part of the Bill is likely to be relatively uncontroversial. The second part, which will deal with hate speech, is sure to generate significantly more debate.

The existing Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 is to be repealed in its entirety. The Department of Justice has come to the conclusion that it is almost entirely ineffective. Between 2000 and 2017 there were only 44 prosecutions, but just five convictions.

One of the failed prosecutions examined by the department was against a man who set up a Facebook page suggesting Traveller babies be used for medical testing, or as animal feed. A judge ruled the comments did not amount to incitement, despite the page attracting more than 600 fans.

The new legislation aims to be much more robust, particularly when it comes to the internet.

Hate speech directed at an individual or group will become a crime whether it is shouted in the street or tweeted online. It will also be a separate offence to distribute or share hate speech, meaning retweeting or sharing something on social media could form an offence.

During a public consultation last year, the department received many submissions expressing legitimate concerns about the impact of such laws on freedom of speech and debate.

Officials are eager to avoid a situation where the Bill becomes part of the broader culture wars that have engulfed the United States and United Kingdom. To this end they have studied equivalent legislation in the UK and examples of what were seen by many as prosecutorial overreach.

For example, in 2017 a 19-year-old UK woman was prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song which contained the n-word to social media as part of a tribute to a deceased friend.

Such prosecutions will be unlikely to happen here as the test of hate speech will be based around the motivation of the speaker. Intentionally or recklessly engaging in hate speech might be a crime. Doing it inadvertently would not.

The legislation will also protect debates on controversial issues which may cause offence to some people or groups. This includes debates on issues like immigration and allowing trans teenagers to begin gender reassignment.

The new legislation should contain robust safeguards for freedom of expression, such as protections for reasonable and genuine contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting, the report states.

Much has to happen before the Bill becomes law. It faces a lengthy journey through the Oireachtas and because of its significance, it is likely to go before the justice committee.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee is aware she has a tightrope to walk between protecting minorities and protecting free speech.

She is also aware the Bill will be used as a rallying cry for far-right and racist groups worried the law will stifle their activities. Such groups have already starting protesting the issue. It will be the Governments challenge to ensure they do not hijack the debate entirely.

Read the original post:

Government must walk a tightrope on hate speech plans - The Irish Times

Cambridge may have won the battle for free speech – but this war is far from over – Telegraph.co.uk

The pandemic was just beginning to rumble when I agreed to be on the advisory board of the Free Speech Union, run by Toby Young. It had become increasingly clear to anyone with half a brain that freedom of speech including perfectly reasonable as well as horrible exercises of it was badly imperilled.

There was a launch party, with lots of lusty speeches, including one by the Humberside docker visited by the police for his rude tweets about trans people (Were here to check your thinking).

Pandemic aside, this year has turned out to be frenetically preoccupied with freedom of speech, what constitutes it, and who its enemies are. Even our most elite institutions have entered the fray, at the very highest level of engagement.

And finally, some progress seems to have been made. Last week, woke-deranged Cambridge pulled up its socks: a policy requiring staff and students to be respectful of all other views was rejected by the universitys governing body.

Academics rightly saw that criticism and disagreement could be attacked and shut down as disrespect so long as that respect clause stayed in. Arif Ahmed, a reader in philosophy, spearheaded the revolt, comparing the atmosphere at Cambridge to that of the Salem witch hunts of the 17th century.

Respect was duly changed to tolerate. There will be less room for no-platforming, and a good thing, too. This is, after all, the Cambridge where students at Clare College recently bayed for the suspension of a porter who resigned from the city council over a motion pertaining to trans rights, and where countless attempts to bully, censor and sack in the name of social justice have come to define its culture.

The Cambridge policy tweak has come at the end of a year of unprecedented curtailment of free speech. Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police in May, Black Lives Matter burst on the scene with revolutionary ambitions for dismantling our culture in its entirety. Accusations of racism soon veered wildly off piste, becoming another means of control and suppression used to sack dissenters and terrify institutions.

Mission accomplished.

High-profile, chilling sackings (or forced resignations) included that of James Bennet, the New York Times opinion page editor whose crime was to run a comment piece by Republican senator Tom Cotton that argued the US military should be deployed if police couldnt get the riots under control. Stockwell Day, a former Canadian cabinet minister, lost three jobs in June after saying on a televised debate that Canada is not a [systemically] racist country while also saying our system needs to be improved.

Meanwhile, the world watched as JK Rowling was flayed on Twitter her crime being her stated belief that sex is biological. Last month, the prize-winning feminist columnist Suzanne Moore left the Guardian after a letter signed by 338 staff suggested views such as hers (she wrote in favour of biological women-only spaces) made the paper transphobic.

The Cambridge vote was certainly positive. But it is important, as we fight for this core value of freedom of speech, that we remain vigilant against slipperiness and hastiness. In this regard, Im not so sure about the Cambridge success. Is it really? Tolerate is a murky word. Doesnt freedom include the right to storm out of a lecture?

Nor am I sure I liked vice-chancellor Stephen Toopes slightly snaky statement that all those with lawful views are included in this toleration clause. Didnt he mean lawful speech? Views are private unless expressed. Toope seems to be implying that you can have illegal opinions. This may have been a slip, but it was a telling one.

Such slipperiness is perhaps to be expected at the top in woke Cambridge. But while free-speech warriors are less prone to slipperiness, we must be careful to avoid sloppiness. The row at Eton is an example, where an English master was sacked after recording a virtual lesson that included a misogynistic, antifeminist video (the two do not necessarily go together, but in this case they do).

The video in question was not appropriate for schoolboys under the guise of education, and teachers cant simply say whatever they want. In this case, its author was disciplined for refusing to recant, and thats fair enough. Yes, it iswrong and unfair that when equally pernicious stuff is fed to schoolchildren under the guise of diversity and inclusion, nobody is punished. But we must be careful not to confuse the curtailment of the inappropriate with the curtailment of the free.

Our battle is far from won and we cant afford to cry wolf when the issue is actually a poodle.

You can read Zoe Strimpels column every Sunday at telegraph.co.uk. Click here to read last week's column

Link:

Cambridge may have won the battle for free speech - but this war is far from over - Telegraph.co.uk

NC State investigation on employee with allegations to white nationalism group still ongoing after one month – N.C. State University Technician Online

On Nov. 17, NC State opened an investigation on Chadwick Seagraves, a desktop support manager in the Office of Information Technology (OIT), due to multiple claims that Seagraves is connected to the Proud Boys, a white nationalist organization, and offensive social media posts. As of Dec. 16, a month after these allegations came to light, the investigation is still ongoing and the University has no updates to report, according to Mick Kulikowsi, NC State spokesperson.

Seagraves released a statement to Technician and other news outlets on Nov. 25 denying the allegations that he is a member of the Proud Boys.

I have been subjected to an organized campaign of slander composed of outright lies, half truths, and out of context claims initiated by anonymous anarchists and antifascists that is designed to punish me and suppress my right to political expression using intimidation and the Hecklers veto with the intent to destroy my career and reputation, Seagraves said in the statement.

Seagraves is under investigation in regards to conduct on a now-deleted Twitter account the Anonymous Comrades Collective, a group of leakers, claimed was his, and for photos and a video which placed him at what has been called an anti-Islam rally in 2017 with far-right activist Augustus Sol Invictus. Additionally, the group claimed he is a member of the Proud Boys and that he was part of the release of over 2,000 Black Lives Matter protesters private information in Portland and Asheville. An organization, Portlands Democratic Socialists of America, has filed a lawsuit in relation to that leak.

In an additional email Seagraves shared with Technician, he claims the 2017 event was a Free Speech rally in celebration of Flag Day and that Invictus was a late addition to what Seagraves states is a very eclectic list of speakers, which included Sue Googe, a former North Carolina Congress candidate; Alex Smith, a former Muslim; and DJ Wiggins, a pastor.

As a librarian, I might loan or recommend books whose contents I completely disagree with that are part of a collection that includes books many people disagree with and want banned, Seagraves said in the email. Does that mean because I introduce the collection of those ideas to the public that I agree with, and am responsible for, all they include? Of course not!

In response to the other allegations, Seagraves said, I am not a member of the Proud Boys, and said he welcomes NC States internal investigation in his statement.

Seagraves never had access to the protected personal information of any NC State student or any employees he does not supervise while in his position at OIT, but the University has further restricted his access while the investigation continues.

Seagraves full statement to Technician and other news outlets is as follows:

I have been subjected to an organized campaign of slander composed of outright lies, half truths, and out of context claims initiated by anonymous anarchists and antifascists that is designed to punish me and suppress my right to political expression using intimidation and the Hecklers veto with the intent to destroy my career and reputation.

I categorically denounce white supremacism and, as a Constitutionalist and Free Speech Absolutist, I abhor the concept of fascism and authoritarianism of any sort.

With regard to the universitys investigation, I welcome a review of my performance and record as an employee. I have served in my position with distinction and believe that my record of diversity as a hiring manager; the equality, kindness, and compassion with which I treat all of my colleagues; and my integrity and commitment to upholding the universitys values of diversity and equity will stand alone.

In 2017 I was still a registered Democrat and had been active in politics for the Democratic Party since 2001. In 2008 I worked at an inner city polling location in Indianapolis as a precinct "judge" and was part of the ground campaign for then candidate Obama. It was seeing exactly the sort of horrible attacks and suppression of free speech that I am going through right now that caused me to reassess my values and position. Our current state of politics is a clash of values. Each side seeing the same set of facts and coming to varying conclusions based on the hierarchy of values to which they subscribe. As a librarian, trained to provide authoritative sources, I have witnessed even those once trusted authorities sink into bias and partisanship. Epistemologically, we are at our lowest.

I am not a member of the Proud Boys.

To paint me as a racist and fascist is heinous slander. I will continue to stand up for the principles and values put in place by the Founding Fathers. If you follow the news at all you will see that conservatives and centrists alike are being denied their right to free speech through violence, deplatforming, and intimidation by violent people who weaponize the term "fascist" or "racist" to denigrate those whose views they oppose. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech." That liberty stands for everyone - regardless of race, creed, sex, or orientation.

I would ask the people who know me to judge me based on how I have treated them and who they know me to be, not on the spurious claims of anonymous activists.

Go here to read the rest:

NC State investigation on employee with allegations to white nationalism group still ongoing after one month - N.C. State University Technician Online

Hate Crime Bill: SNP is being taught a lesson about the value of free speech Murdo Fraser MSP – The Scotsman

NewsOpinionColumnistsWhen the Scottish Parliament was first established, it was intended that the committees, constituted on a cross-party basis reflective of the political balance at Holyrood, would perform an important scrutiny role, effectively acting as a second chamber.

Tuesday, 15th December 2020, 4:45 pm

In practice, this has not been how things have worked out. Expectations that MSPs on committees would leave their party-political allegiances at the door and act independently have been dashed, with the consequence that too often the ability to hold ministers to account has been frustrated. This was particularly the case during the period of SNP majority government between 2011 and 2016.

Since the SNP lost their overall majority, we have seen committees become more assertive, and prepared to challenge the government where appropriate.

We see that on a weekly basis in the Salmond Inquiry Committee, on which I presently sit, and we saw it just last week in a report from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee slamming the catastrophic handling by the Scottish government of ferry procurement.

Unintended consequences

One of the best examples of a committee doing its work effectively also came last week, with the publication by the Justice Committee of its stage one report on the SNPs Hate Crime Bill. Under the stewardship of my Conservative colleague Adam Tomkins MSP, the committee has done an excellent, thorough job of analysing the Bill, identifying the key areas of controversy, and suggesting improvements.

As readers of The Scotsman will be well aware, this is a Bill that provokes strong opinions. Whilst everyone should deplore hate speech, there have been real concerns expressed that the legislation as drafted goes too far in seeking to close down public debate and restrict free speech.

An alliance of lawyers, writers, comedians, human rights advocates, and religious groups have come together to oppose the Bill, and express serious concerns about its impact.

In its report, the Justice Committee recognises the broader context for the Bill, and the debate around freedom of speech, agreeing the right to freedom of speech includes the right to offend, shock or disturb.

It goes on to say: The committee understands that this Bill is not intended to prohibit speech which others may find offensive, and neither is it intended to lead to any self-censorship. The committee is anxious to ensure, however, that these are not unintended consequences of the Bill.

Would Bible be deemed inflammatory?

Much of the committees report analyses in detail the controversial aspects of the Bill, which relate almost exclusively to part two, and the creation of new offences around stirring up hatred. Despite concessions put forward by the Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, witnesses were still concerned that the Bill would impact on freedom of expression, and the right to criticise religions.

At a number of points, the heated public debate on trans issues was quoted as one area where the Bill could have a chilling effect on the ability for that debate to be conducted, and all opinions aired. The recent opinions of the writer JK Rowling were quoted by witnesses as an example of a legitimate point of view that could potentially be criminalised by the Bill as presented.

The language in the Bill is analysed, including whether terms such as insulting and abusive in relation to speech should be included. The committee concluded that the meaning of the word abusive in the Bill had to be clear.

A number of witnesses raised concerns around the so-called dwelling provisions which provided that hate speech could be criminalised even if it took place in a family home. There were also issues around section five of the Bill which criminalised simply the possession of inflammatory material, it being pointed out by the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible itself could be considered inflammatory in some contexts.

There are existing protections built into the Bill to permit freedom of expression, around criticism of religion, and sexual conduct and practices. However, the committee was concerned that these did not go far enough, and recommended wider protections of free speech, to more closely align with the equivalent provisions in England and Wales.

Fresh concessions not enough

On Monday, the Justice Secretary indicated his willingness to make further concessions, including to strengthen the freedom of expression provisions, to make clear that the term abusive was an objective test, and to propose limits on police powers of search and entry. In addition, he agreed to remove section five on possession on inflammatory material from the Bill entirely.

I am sure these further concessions will be welcomed by the committee which, combined with the previous announcements from the Justice Secretary, represent a major shift in his position away from the Bill as originally introduced. However, there are very serious concerns that, even with these adjustments, the Bill still goes too far in terms of restricting freedom of speech.

The Justice Committee has done a tremendous service to Parliament, and to the Scottish public more generally, with its thorough analysis of the Bill and the key issues that arise from it.

It will now be up to the Scottish Government, and MSPs across all parties, to determine whether the Bill can be sufficiently improved as it goes through the parliamentary stages to make it worthy of adding to the statute book.

Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this whole episode has been that a measure around which all of us should unite, the clarification of the law against hate speech in Scotland, has ended up mired in so much political controversy because of overreach on the part of the SNP government.

I hope that they have learned a lesson from this legislation that Scotland as a nation, across all sectors and political opinions, values free speech, and is prepared to defend that right vigorously.

Murdo Fraser is a Conservative MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read the original:

Hate Crime Bill: SNP is being taught a lesson about the value of free speech Murdo Fraser MSP - The Scotsman

Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions – New York Post

President-elect Joe Bidens transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make hate speech a crime.

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition Team Lead for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.

He wrote: All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. Im all for protecting thought that we hate, but not speech that incites hate.

Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of false narratives by Russia during the 2016 election.

Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that? Stengel wrote.

Its a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

Stengel wrote that our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society, adding, Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.

Stengel until recently worked as a paid MSNBC contributor. He led theNational Constitution Center from 2004 to 2006, and was under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2014 to 2016 during the final years of the Obama administration.

Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but theres no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation, Stengel wrote.

I think its time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites imminent lawless action or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesnt pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?

USAGM and VOA leadership ranks were gutted this year as Trump-nominated CEO Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker, sought to reform the agency. Pack fired and suspended executives over a pro-Biden video produced by VOA Urdu and for allegedly faulty security checks in hiring foreign workers.

More:

Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions - New York Post

Clearview AIs First Amendment Theory Threatens Privacyand Free Speech, Too – Slate

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Getty Images Plus.

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.

What could be one of the most consequential First Amendment cases of the digital age is pending before a court in Illinois and will likely be argued before the end of the year. The case concerns Clearview AI, the technology company that surreptitiously scraped 3 billion images from the internet to feed a facial recognition app it sold to law enforcement agencies. Now confronting multiple lawsuits based on an Illinois privacy law, the company has retained Floyd Abrams, the prominent First Amendment litigator, to argue that its business activities are constitutionally protected. Landing Abrams was a coup for Clearview, but whether anyone else should be celebrating is less clear. A First Amendment that shielded Clearview and other technology companies from reasonable privacy regulation would be bad for privacy, obviously, but it would be bad for free speech, too.

The lawsuits against Clearview are in their early stages, but there does not seem to be any dispute about the important facts. The company assembled a vast database of images scraped from the internetincluding from social media networks, news sites, and employment siteswithout the consent or knowledge of the people pictured. When a user of Clearviews app uploads a photo of a face, the app converts the image into a series of coordinates and shows images from the database that share similar coordinates. The app also supplies links to the websites from which the company obtained those similar images. The technology is powerful and fast, which is why federal immigration authorities and hundreds of police departments are already using it.

The people whove sued Clearview contend that the company is violating an Illinois privacy law that regulates the collection, use, and dissemination of biometric information. The company argues in defense that its business practices involve the kinds of activities that the First Amendment has been held to protect in the pastcollecting publicly available information, analyzing it, and sharing the conclusions of that analysis. In a brief filed in October, it likened its app to a search engine and contended that its judgment about what information will be most useful to users is an editorial judgment akin to those made by newspapers.

That Clearview is reaching for the First Amendment is not a surprise. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been willing to extend the First Amendments protection to an ever-expanding range of activities. Technology companies have learned that an effective way to protect lucrative business practices from regulation is to characterize those practices as free speech. Google has been arguing, with some success in the lower courts, that judges should deal with any effort to regulate its search engine in the same way theyd deal with efforts to censor the Wall Street Journal. In Maine, internet service providers are arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to use and sell their customers sensitive data without their consent. Earlier this fall, President Donald Trump issued an executive order meant to shut down TikTok, the video-sharing platform. The company sued, arguing that the order violated the First Amendment because TikTok runs on code, and code is speech.

These arguments may sound audacious, but its more difficult than you might imagine to draw lines between these companies business practices and the kinds of activities that most of us believe the First Amendment must protect. Why, exactly, should the First Amendment treat Googles decisions about which search results to highlight differently from the New York Times decisions about which articles to feature on its front page? Why is it, precisely, that the First Amendment should protect journalists who scrape the web in the service of their journalism but not Clearview when it scrapes the web in the service of its app? Principled line-drawing in this context is hard. (Go on, try it yourself.) The slopes are slippery. Even skeptics of the technology companies arguments may legitimately worry about the broader implications of allowing judges to place those companies activities outside the First Amendments protection.

But if line-drawing is difficult here, its also absolutely necessary. When courts conclude that a given activity is speech within the meaning of the First Amendment, they protect it from government regulation, which makes it more difficult for the government to address social harms that may be associated with it. Its important, then, that First Amendment protection be reserved for the kinds of activities that actually further the ends the First Amendment was meant to serve.

Is Clearview engaged in activity that the First Amendment should care about? This is a hard question, but the companys arguments dont immediately persuade us. The company says its engaged in the creation and dissemination of information, but American courts havent extended First Amendment protection mechanically to every activity that involves information, data, or even speech in the colloquial sense, as scholars have observed. Instead, courts have looked to the social meaning of the activity in question, asking, for instance, whether the activity belongs to a recognized medium of expression; whether it is intended to convey a message and whether that message is likely to be understood; and, perhaps most important, whether the activity has the effect of informing public discourse.

It was considerations like these that led the courts to extend the First Amendments protection to flag burning, video games, and picketingthough none of these things is speech in the ordinary sense of the word. And it was considerations like these that led courts to withhold First Amendment protection from the solicitation of hitmen, threats of immediate violence, and agreements to fix pricesthough most people would describe all of these things as speech. It has always mattered to courts, in other words, what an activity signifies, and what it is, and what it does.

With all of this in mind, Clearviews claim to First Amendment protection is less than compelling. The companys extraction of biometric data from photos scraped from the internetwhich is the specific activity that the Illinois law regulates heredoes not belong to any recognized mode of expression. And it is not intended to inform public discourse, even if on occasion it might do so incidentally. For understandable reasons, Clearview wants courts to think of the company as an editor and the companys app as a search engine. But the companys arguments seem to rely on obscuring differences that matter.

The bigger problem for the company, though, may be that even if the companys business activities are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment, the Illinois law is a reasonable regulation of that speech. In its legal papers, Clearview argues that any law regulating its business activities should be subject to the most stringent form of constitutional scrutinythe same kind of scrutiny courts would apply to a law censoring the press. But while laws censoring the press are speech-suppressive almost by definition, this isnt true of laws protecting individual privacy. To the contrary, privacy is a precondition for all First Amendment freedoms, including the freedom of speech, and so laws protecting privacy can sometimes be speech-enhancing. As the Supreme Court has observed, in many privacy cases there are free speech interests on both sides of the balance. In those cases, the question the courts should ask is not whether the law can survive the most stringent scrutiny but whether it balances those interests in a reasonable way.

The Illinois law does this. It focuses narrowly on certain forms of nonconsensual surveillance that pose an especially serious threat to individual privacy. Facial recognition in particular is an immensely powerful form of surveillance whose abuse could fundamentally undermine civil liberties, including the liberties the First Amendment is meant to protect. Clearviews technology highlights these dangers. The companys app would allow anyone to identify the protesters who attended a particular political rally, or to identify the people who entered a particular house of worship or medical clinic. According to the New York Times, one of the apps founders tried to sell access to a white supremacist who was running for Congress, telling him, quite accurately, that the app could be used to conduct extreme opposition research. Against this background, Illinois decision to restrict the nonconsensual collection and use of biometric information is perfectly understandable. The law is a straightforward response to technology whose unregulated deployment would, as the New York Times observed, end privacy as we know it.

This is not to say that the Illinois law is perfect. It doesnt restrict the collection and use of biometric data by government agencies, for example. It doesnt include exceptions for journalismand, consequently, its possible that a journalist might be able to challenge the application of the law to a specific investigative project. On the whole, though, the law is a reasonable effort to balance competing interests, including those related to the First Amendment. It would be disappointing, to say the least, if the courts let Clearview use the First Amendment to kneecap the freedoms it was meant to protect. Carefully drawn privacy laws are a precondition for free speech in the digital age, not a threat to it.

More broadly, it would be terrible for the freedoms of inquiry, association, and speech if the courts didnt think very carefully before allowing companies like Clearview to wrap their business models in the First Amendment. It hardly needs to be said that our speech environment looks radically different today than it did 50 years ago, when the Supreme Court issued many of the rulings that have come to define the First Amendment. Most political speech now takes place online. A small number of tech companies serve as the gatekeepers of online public discourse. Their business model entails pervasive surveillance of what we read, what we say, and whom we associate and correspond with. These developments demand that legislatures think creatively about how the digital public sphere can be kept moored to democratic values and the public interest. It would be a mistake to allow the First Amendment to become an obstacle to laws essential to protect the integrity and vitality of free speech in the digital age.

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

Visit link:

Clearview AIs First Amendment Theory Threatens Privacyand Free Speech, Too - Slate

Technology and Society: Free speech and the internet revisited – Plattsburgh Press Republican

Many feel that any restriction to free speech is generally a dangerous and slippery slope, reasoning that once the government decides to ban or limit speech in even the most innocuous cases, it becomes a small crack in the right to free speech which can only grow. Because the very first Amendment to our Constitution contains protection of speech, it is just not worth the gamble to mess with it.

On the other hand, there are a growing number who would limit Internet speech to stop hate speech and fake news which most people feel contributes to current distrust of any information from the Left if you are a member of the Right and vice-versa. It divides, not informs the nation. What to do?

MORE PARTIES?

It seems time to re-examine the laws concerning information flow as well as how we govern ourselves. Perhaps a multi-party political system like those in Europe instead of a two-party political system would produce better results because it affords voters with more nuanced choices a voter doesnt have to swallow the entire platform of either party.

The down side to multi-party systems is that the winner of an election usually gets a ruling party that has garnered less than 50% of the vote. The rebuttal to that is simple: due to the structure of our current Electoral system the outcome of winning by less than 50% of the national vote has been happening with greater frequency for example the 2016 presidential election where Clinton received 2.87 million more votes than Trump but lost in the Electoral college (Wikipedia). Also, because European elections seldom elect a government with a clear majority, the winner has to form a coalition with one or more of the other parties in order to pass legislation. On the other hand, one can argue that forming coalitions is similar to what we currently do but by individual members of the other party crossing over, voting their conscience or, more likely, creating an obligation- dependency for the receiver of the vote to help out the giver in future votes. Politics is complicated.

In order to gain a better understanding of the issue of Freedom of Speech on the Internet, we must first understand some of the history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or CDA. Here goes:

Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in an attempt to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit materials on the Internet. (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)), (However) the Supreme Court ruled the CDA to be unconstitutionally overbroad because it suppressed a significant amount of protected adult speech in the effort to protect minors from potentially harmful speech.

(https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-59)

LIBRARIAN HEADACHES

You can see that the CDA had a very short lifetime of about one year because it was very quickly opposed by the Internet community as well as the ACLU and the American Library Association on the grounds that it was violating the right to free speech. Librarians in particular were distressed. They had tried to set up filters on their computers to adhere to the CDA and block porn sites for example but soon realized they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A list of sites that were unfairly blocked included sites ranging from Good Vibration Guide to Sex to Contraception and Sexually Transmitted Diseases to sites devoted to the topic of breast cancer (www.womens-health.org/sex.htm) and even one that remains a mystery to me: A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens !

(https://www.ntia.gov/legacy/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipacomments/pre/fepp/appendixA.html)

Because established law will always lag behind the advance of technology, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have to re-examine much of our law due to changes wrought by the Internet. As if the Internet giants (Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon) did not have enough trouble with Congress probing privacy concerns as well as beginning to investigate if they are monopolies.

Who knew, in 1991, that the World Wide Web (WWW) aka the Internet would raise such interesting and perplexing problems?

Dr. Stewart A. Denenberg is an emeritus professor of computer science at Plattsburgh State, retiring recently after 30 years there. Before that, he worked as a technical writer, programmer and consultant to the U.S. Navy and private Industry. Send comments and suggestions to his blog at http://www.tec-soc.blogspot.com, where there is additional text and links. He can also be reached at denenbsa@gmail.com.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:

Technology and Society: Free speech and the internet revisited - Plattsburgh Press Republican

SC talks of regulation even as Centre stresses on media free speech over Tablighi Jamaat reporting – Asianet News Newsable

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed displeasure over the Centres affidavit in the case related to media reporting of Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, and said it should consider setting up a regulatory mechanism to deal with such content on TV.

In a case of role reversal, the Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed to push the Centre to exercise its powers under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act against TV channels to have an effective oversight on the contents of TV programmes even as the Centre argued that it respected the medias right to free speech and was loath to play the regulator.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was dissatisfied and disappointed by the affidavit filed by the central government.

First you did not file a proper affidavit and then you filed an affidavit which did not deal with the two important questions. This way it cannot be done Mr Mehta, a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. We want to know as to what is the mechanism to deal with these contents on television. If there is no regulatory mechanism then you create one. Regulation cannot be left to organisation like NBSA, said the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

The hearing came nearly a month after the top court berated the government for having a junior officer file what it called an "extremely offensive and brazen" response.

"Tell us what's the present legal regime you have... you haven't told anything," the top court said. The Solicitor General told the court that a fresh affidavit will be filed.

The Centre has defended the media in this case and said in its response to the Supreme Court that there was "no instance of bad reporting".

The Supreme Court last month pulled up the Centre on its affidavit and said it "must tell us instances of bad reporting" and what action had been taken. "Freedom of speech is one of the most abused freedoms in recent times," Chief Justice SA Bobde had said during the hearing last month.

The top court has been hearing petitions for action against the media for "spreading hatred" over the Tablighi meet at Markaz Nizamuddin earlier this year.

Go here to read the rest:

SC talks of regulation even as Centre stresses on media free speech over Tablighi Jamaat reporting - Asianet News Newsable

Conservatives spill lots of ink on the lack of free speech – Toronto Star

People on the political right have lost all of their freedom of speech. We know this because they write and broadcast about it so often in major newspapers and magazines, countless talk radio stations, television networks owned by billionaires, and books published by multinational conglomerates.

And in case wed forgotten, which is somewhat unlikely, Conservative politician Leslyn Lewis, who came an extremely impressive and close third in her partys recent leadership race and is running for the safe riding of Haldimand-Norfolk in the next federal election, has just told us once again about it all in the National Post. Where, of course, other conservatives such as Conrad Black and Rex Murphy are silenced on a regular basis.

Dr. Lewis wrote that we are no longer free to disagree, and even an innocent or naive verbal misstep can have dire consequences. She described the new PC culture as being cultish and that if you express a dissident opinion from the woke you are accused of being evil and full of hate. This went on for several hundred words.

The obvious irony aside, I wrote a column about Lewis back in September in which while I expressed great respect for her achievements and ability, also asked some serious and informed questions about her views on such issues as full LGBTQ2 equality, womens reproductive rights, and conversion therapy, and wondered why she hadnt been questioned more thoroughly about these themes. She is a woman hoping to achieve high office, and I a journalist and a citizen simply posed some pertinent questions.

First, several of her supporters attacked me on social media, and claimed entirely falsely and even scurrilously that I had spread hatred and lies. Then Dr. Lewis blocked me on Twitter. I sometimes block people too, but only if they are weirdly obsessive in their tweets, repeat libels about me just a little too often, attack my family, or insult others. I make a point of tolerating abuse to a degree that some consider unwise. Also, Im not a politician and am not seeking to be a public representative.

But theres a greater point here. Of course the debate around freedom of speech and so-called cancel culture is an important one, and there is no doubt that some on the left are crudely intolerant of contrary opinion. This, however, is nothing compared to how the right has long behaved and still does.

Im not of any importance, but when I evolved in my views on equal marriage seven years ago, I was fired from dozens of newspaper and magazine columns, radio and TV shows, and speaking contracts. There was a concerted and organized campaign to silence me and, chillingly, deprive me of my ability to make a living. Not everybody on the right did this, just as not everybody on the left is darkly oppressive. Most of us realize this, others make sweeping generalizations.

Dr. Lewis also writes in her column that, regrettably, some people are accused of being unscientific. This statement has potentially serious consequences. There are those who resist vaccinations, campaign against the wearing of masks, believe that the coronavirus pandemic is a hoax, deny the reality of trans people, think that LGBTQ2 men and women can be cured of their sexuality, and so on. They have a right to these grim opinions, but we have an obligation to label them as unscientific. Irresponsible fantasy is not the same as free speech, and can be irresponsible and dangerous.

Lewis concludes that, Free speech is dying, but there is hope for the human spirit to return to its origin of freedom, free will, free speech and free belief.

This may go down well with her base but its simply too flawed to be taken seriously. Free speech has context and nuance, and those with great power media magnates, influential politicians, the wealthy have more freedom than others. Those long silenced are speaking up, often for the first time, and that can make the traditionally vocal somewhat uncomfortable.

Reasoned consideration, empathy, and moderation will help us all a great deal, but politicized hyperbole only makes it worse. Lets not block all of this out, for all of our sakes.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

The rest is here:

Conservatives spill lots of ink on the lack of free speech - Toronto Star

Board of Regents President says tuition will not increase in the spring – UI The Daily Iowan

State Board of Regents President Mike Richards announced tuition will remain the same for the spring 2021 semester for resident and nonresident students attending regent institutions at the boards meeting Wednesday. The decision puts the board an entire academic year behind in its five-year tuition increase plan.

The state Board of Regents will not increase tuition for students in the spring semester, but will return to its five-year tuition increase plan in fall 2021.

During regent President Mike Richards report Wednesday, he said the tuition and mandatory fees will remain flat for all students through the spring semester.

The board will not be increasing tuition or mandatory fees for the rest of the academic year, he said. Because of COVID-19, pausing the five-year tuition model for one academic year was the right thing to do, but in balancing the needs for our future institutions, we are planning to resume the five-year tuition plan beginning with the fall 2021 semester.

The regents initially froze fees for the fall semester because of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. As The Daily Iowan previously reported, the decision was because of the financial uncertainty for students created by COVID-19.

RELATED: Regents approve tuition freeze for fall 2020 semester, student leaders urge for similar action in spring

At the regents June 4 meeting, several student government leaders from Iowas three public universities voiced their concerns about a potential mid-year tuition increase. University of Iowa Undergraduate Student Government President Connor Wooff voiced concerns at the summer meeting because of students losing jobs and other experiences during the pandemic.

While our university came together this semester, our push for economic relief cannot be over, Wooff said during the June meeting. Students at the University of Iowa are still struggling and hurting because of the global pandemic, perpetual racial injustice, and the immense uncertainty about what is to come. Students need our support and our thoughts, but not just our actions.

Overthe next few board meetings, Richards said the regents will release more details on how they will return to the five-year tuition model.

The five-year tuition model was approved by the regents at a June 2019 meeting. The model increased undergraduate resident tuition by 3.9 percent at the UI and a 1 percent increase for nonresident undergraduates for the 2019-20 academic year.

The 2019 model plans to increase the tuition at the UI and Iowa State University by 3 to 5 percent for the five years following 2019. Any increases above three percent would be based on state appropriation levels and inflation.

At Wednesdays meeting, Richards also discussed the creation of a new regents committee regarding the insurance of free speech on campus.

Everyone has the right to express their own opinion, he said. Disagreeing on issues and having a respectful debate about those issues should happen on our university campuses. What should not happen is preventing another person or groups opinion from being expressed, or threatening those opinions with possible repercussions. This is not who we are. And it is not right.

Richards said the institutional heads of regent institutions will need to provide a thorough update to the regents about what their institution is doing to protect free speech on campus and in classrooms. He said the board will not tolerate any violations of anyones freedom of speech.

Regents David Barker, Nancy Boettger, and Zack Liest were appointed to the committee. Leist is the student regent and attends Iowa State University. The committee is charged with evaluating the implementation of the boards free speech policy that was established in 2019.

They will also bring any recommendations for changes that can strengthen the regents efforts on free speech to the February 2021 meeting.

This is an issue we must address, Richards said. The conversation should be transparent and public.

Original post:

Board of Regents President says tuition will not increase in the spring - UI The Daily Iowan

Lower courts must heed the apex courts words on personal liberties and free speech – The Indian Express

Written by Rekha Sharma | Updated: November 17, 2020 8:47:18 amNo one holds any brief for Rhea Chakraborty or Goswami insofar as the merits of the two cases are concerned. The power to pronounce them guilty or innocent rests with the courts and no one else.

As you sow, so shall you reap is an old adage which holds true for Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Republic TV. Goswami, who went hammer and tongs at actor Rhea Chakraborty, accusing her of being a member of drug mafia and abetting the suicide by Sushant Singh Rajput, cried foul when he was arrested from his residence for allegedly abetting the suicide committed by an architect Anvay Naik. In a suicide note recovered from the spot where Naik was found dead, he had alleged that Goswami and two others, namely Feroz Sheikh and Niteish Sarda, owed him substantial sums of money, and on account of non-payment by them, he and his mother were driven to commit suicide. Although an FIR was registered against all three, it ended with the police submitting a summary report in the concerned court, which means that the investigation did not throw up sufficient evidence against the accused. Naiks wife and daughter alleged that they were not informed about the closure report and it is only after they came to know of it that they ran from pillar to post, which resulted in the re-investigation of the case and the arrest of Goswami.

No one holds any brief for Rhea Chakraborty or Goswami insofar as the merits of the two cases are concerned. The power to pronounce them guilty or innocent rests with the courts and no one else. Unfortunately, a few TV channels have arrogated to themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner. Chakraborty is yet to be pronounced guilty or innocent by a court of competent jurisdiction, but she already stands convicted in the court of Goswami, which he conducts every night.

Editorial | Hopefully, SC listens to itself and stands up for Kunal Kamra

Goswami has since been released from jail on the order of the Supreme Court. However, the order granting bail to him has evoked mixed reactions. Many in the legal fraternity feel that Goswami has been receiving preferential treatment in the matter of listing of his cases, while many others who were placed far worse, when Goswami came rushing to the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court order declining interim bail to him, are languishing in jail, waiting for their turn to be heard in the Supreme Court. This feeling has been echoed by none other than the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dushyant Dave. In a scathing letter to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court, Dave has alleged that the SC registry has been selectively listing matters, even when the system is supposedly computerised. According to the records available with the SC registry, Goswamis petition reportedly had nine defects, and even the vakalatnama was unsigned, yet it was listed on the day following its filing. Dave had requested that his letter be placed before the bench scheduled to hear the matter. We do not know whether the letter was placed before the bench, and if so, whether it passed any order on the same, or simply ignored it.

It may be recalled that before Dave, Justice Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court on his retirement had also spoken of the priority or lack of it being accorded to certain cases in the matter of listing. Justice Gupta said he had seen cases involving big money and fancy law firms being listed in four weeks, while those involving junior lawyers not being listed even after six months. Given the fact that two eminent voices have struck discordant notes about the functioning of the registry, it is high time that the Supreme Court pays attention. It must dispel the impression that the registry is being managed, and some people are treated more equal than others. In order to get to the bottom of the malaise, will the Supreme Court, in my humble view, direct the registry to furnish information about how many bail and habeas corpus petitions were filed during the last 24 months, with the date of their filing? When were they first taken up for hearing and what was the date of their disposal? How many of them were under objections and were taken up without removal of objections? The registry is bound to supply this information as a consumer of justice is entitled to have this information.

READ |Bail pleas of journalist, another: SC says why not go to HC

The redeeming feature of the bail order is the emphasis that the Supreme Court has laid on the personal liberty of individuals and made observations to the effect that state governments are targeting individuals on the basis of ideology and differences of opinion. The Supreme Court has also said, that if constitutional courts do not interfere today then we are traveling the path of destruction. We must send a message to the High Courts today that please exercise your jurisdictions to uphold liberty. These words by the Supreme Court are highly reassuring to all those who feel that an individuals right to freedom of speech and expression is under threat as never before. It has kindled hope in the hearts of many languishing in jail precisely for the reasons noticed by the Supreme Court. Notable amongst them is 81-year-old Telugu poet Varavara Rao and activist Sudha Bhardwaj, who are in custody since August 2018 in the Elgar Parishad case. They have repeatedly pleaded for bail on medical grounds but are being denied the same. Recently, a Kerala journalist was arrested by the UP police on October 5 under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act when he was on his way to Hathras to cover the gang rape of a 19-year-old Dalit woman. Besides, social activists, students in the wake of agitation against CAA, and many others consequent to abrogation of Article 370 are behind bars on trumped up charges under the draconian sedition law or UAPA.

It is earnestly hoped that the concerned courts will heed the advice of the Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders in deserving cases and not go by the label of the charges.

This article first appeared in the print edition on November 17, 2020 under the title Listen to the Supreme Court. The writer is a former judge of the Delhi High Court

Opinion | Tavleen Singh writes: Media has been managed so well by Modi government that for ministers to dare speak of press freedom is offensive

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.

See more here:

Lower courts must heed the apex courts words on personal liberties and free speech - The Indian Express

Hong Kong and the University’s Free Speech Responsibility – The Chicago Maroon

The University of Chicago has a long, proud commitment to freedom of speech. After the Communist Party USAs presidential candidate called for the violent abolition of capitalism on campus in 1935, the University president defended the seditious speech before a special session in the Illinois Senate. More recently, the University administration generated controversy and earned plaudits for rejecting safe spaces and promoting Chicago Principles of free expression. The report that outlines these principles states, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

However, months into the most alarming restriction of campus free speech in decades, the University administration has not lifted a finger or said a peep. If it really does care about the freedom of speech, the University must do more than end its silence. It must act decisively and again lead academia on the issue.

After a year of protests, the Peoples Republic of China imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong this June. The law harshly penalizes broadly defined crimes including sedition, subversion, terrorism, and colluding with foreign forces and advocating secession from mainland China. Most disquietingly, the laws Article 38 asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute activism and offenses committed against the Hong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region."

In other words, the law applies to everybody inside Hong Kong and out. It applies to you.

Beijing has a history of seeking the extradition of non-Chinese citizens to China for criminal prosecution. Students at American universities are not exempt from its pursuits and crackdowns. Just this year, a 20-year-old University of Minnesota student was sentenced to six months of imprisonment upon returning to China for tweets posted while in the U.S. The tweets were deemed to portray a national leader in an unflattering light because they likened him to a certain banned cartoon bear and "created a negative social impact."

Hong Kong student activists as young as 16 have already been arrested under the national security law for social media posts that called for regaining [Hong Kongs]right of self-determination. Hong Kong authorities have also released the arrest warrant for Samuel Chua Hong Kong-born activist and community organizer who has lived in the U.S. since 1990 and has American citizenship.

Many UChicago students unable to return to Hyde Park are currently taking classes remotely from Hong Kong and mainland China. As Zoom classes are recorded and stored as files, and many classes require blog posts, there is a real risk of immediate arrest for remarks made in class discussions and writing. While this risk is most acute for mainland Chinese and Hong Kongstudents, it exists for any and all students and faculty who may one day visit Hong Kong.

Classes at other universities now carry labels to alert students that they will cover material considered politically sensitive by China, and their professors are experimenting with blind grading, codes in place of individual names, anonymous online chats, and allowing students to opt-out of discussions without an impact on their grade.

UChicagos Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Professor of Political Science, has a regional specialty in East Asia and has written specifically about the national security law. He confirmed that he has received no guidance from the University administration on what privacy precautions he should take. Ginsburg wrote to me, I do think that, in our era of remote attendance, those of us who teach relevant subjects should be aware if we have students who are physically located in Chinese territory, including Hong Kong, that might be at risk. He uses blind grading and supports giving such students the option to opt-out of discussions that may violate local law.

The University of Chicago must uniformly adopt the measures advised by the Association for Asian Studies and the additional suggestions of Asia Society scholars. While some may be, and have already been, adopted by individual faculty, technology policies and video software are university-wide concerns.

Zooms cooperation with mainland Chinese authorities is worrying, and the University must further inquire into which local laws its technology partners comply with to ensure that student and faculty data are secure. The collection of student and staff data of any kind must be minimized, and data storage must be decentralized. Overreliance on Zoom is dangerous; having multiple and redundant software systems would further decentralize and mitigate the risk of one company deciding to comply with Chinese law in ways that jeopardize data security and student safety.

Unless the University takes decisive action soon, an arguably more dangerous threat to academic freedom will worsen: self-censorship.

Author George Packer wrote, Fear breeds self-censorship, and self-censorship is more insidious than the state-imposed kind because its a surer way of killing the impulse to think, which requires an unfettered mind. At a time when U.S.-China relations have deteriorated to their worst state in decades, we cannot afford to suspend rigorous inquiry and research into the affairs of the worlds most populous country. Students and professors must be able to continue honest, candid, and complete discussions about Hong Kong and mainland China in line with the Chicago Principles of which the University administration is so proud.

Ginsburg emailed me, The purpose [of uncensored academic discussion] is not advocacy but analysis. I think it can be both. When students are arrested for social media posts and pro-democracy professors are fired for dissidence, to resist self-censorship and forthrightly analyze the politically sensitive are acts of solidarity. When under the shadow of totalitarian censorship, studying and speaking freely are not neutral.

Good people can disagree over whether Steve Bannon should speak on campus. But surely all can agree that being imprisoned for a Winnie the Pooh tweet is as unjust as it is absurd.

Until the University administration rises to the challenge of ensuring its communitys safety, let us continue to speak, study, think, and tweet freely and merrily. We must.

Devin Haas is a third year in the College.

Excerpt from:

Hong Kong and the University's Free Speech Responsibility - The Chicago Maroon

Attack on teacher in France rekindles debate on free speech and Islam – Vox.com

The murder last week of a teacher who used images of the Prophet Muhammad in lessons about freedom of expression by a teenage Muslim refugee has sparked a solidarity movement in France and reignited the debate over Islams role in the country.

History and geography teacher Samuel Paty, 47, brought scrutiny this month when he showed his 12- to 14-year-old students two caricatures of Muhammad published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo the same images that in 2015 inspired jihadists to kill 11 staff members at the magazine and six others in Paris. Parents and teachers at the school, located just 20 miles outside the capital, said Paty gave his Muslim pupils the opportunity to leave the classroom or look away so as not to anger them.

Idolatry is forbidden in Islam, and many devout Muslims believe any depictions of Mohammed, or any revered prophet, to be taboo. But many also found the Charlie Hebdo drawings particularly offensive not just because they depicted the prophet, but because they did so in a way that some critics said perpetuated racist, bigoted stereotypes of Muslims.

A weeks-long uproar ensued. One students father called for a mobilization against Paty including his firing and posted the schools address and the teachers name on social media. An Islamist militant even accompanied upset parents to the school to push for the instructors ouster.

But the situation turned deadly last Friday when Abdoullakh Abouyezidovitch, an 18-year-old refugee from Chechnya, beheaded Paty with a butcher knife as the teacher made his way home. French authorities said the suspected attacker, who lived about 40 miles away from the school, asked students to identify Paty moments before killing him. The teenager was shot dead after he tried to stab and shoot back at authorities who closed in on him.

Police found a Twitter account suspected of belonging to the attacker since he posted a picture of the severed head along with a message: I have executed one of the dogs from hell who dared to put Muhammad down.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who on Saturday visited the site of the murder, said the beheading appeared to be an Islamist terrorist attack committed because Paty taught freedom of expression. He added that the terrorist sought to attack the republic and its values, further noting this is our battle and it is existential. They [terrorists] will not succeed. They will not divide us.

On Monday, police raided numerous homes across France as part of its probe into Patys killing. About 15 people have been taken into custody and 51 Islamic organizations are under investigation, Interior Minister Grald Darmanin said on Monday. The enemies of the Republic wont be given a minutes respite, he told the Europe 1 radio station.

Its no surprise France is taking the suspected terror attack very seriously. Since the Charlie Hebdo assault in 2015, the last few years have seen high-profile knife attacks, strikes against police on the Champs-lyses, and a coordinated assault in Paris that killed 130 people and injured hundreds more.

But Fridays killing strikes at the core of two of Frances most turbulent debates, which of late have somewhat fused together: whether there should be limits on freedom of speech, and how Muslims should integrate into French society.

And its a conversation that could continue to roil the nations politics for years to come.

For over a year, Macron promised to detail his views on the role of Islam in Frances secular culture. On October 2, he finally delivered that address.

What we must attack is Islamist separatism, he told the nation, saying extremists preyed upon desperate Muslims in desolate neighborhoods, basically creating anti-French enclaves by spreading their radical Islamic ideology and project.

We built our own separatism ourselves, he continued, arguing French authorities made such a situation possible by huddling immigrants together in areas apart from good-paying jobs or French public schools. To solve the problem, he offered some reforms, like within four years forbidding foreign-trained imams (Muslim religious leaders) to preach in France. Instead, all imams must be certified in the country in order to lead a congregation.

It was clear Macron, who has long called for an Islam of France that seamlessly integrates Muslims into the countrys society, aimed to distinguish between extremists and all Muslims. Still, his speech, and the thinking underlying it, received mixed reviews.

Some said his statements namely, Islam is a religion that is in crisis today, all over the world were incendiary, not measured. They also accuse Macron, who is up for reelection in 18 months, of trying to garner some right-wing bona fides by taking a tougher stance against Islamic extremism. The repression of Muslims has been a threat, now it is a promise, tweeted Yasser Louati, a French Muslim activist.

Others, like the Atlantic Council think tanks Benjamin Haddad, said the speech and Macrons views on the issue set the right tone.

It underlined the urgency to fight separatism, Haddad, who has defended Macrons policies in Washington, DC, since 2017, told me. Its really more about certain neighborhoods and areas that arent necessarily violent ... but will progressively socialize radical ideology as French republican ideals cant get through anymore. Its more than an ideological fight, he added. Were talking about losing territory.

If you go to Paris, everyone will tell you theres a problem. Its one of the deepest societal problems in France today, he concluded.

But what the disagreement over Macrons speech underscores is how France has struggled to accept Muslims as they come. For example, the country has banned headscarves in public schools and for government employees while at work. The government says such measures are meant to help Muslims integrate with Frances secular culture, while critics say the focus on Islamic garb stems from bigotry.

This issue burst out into the open after the terrorist attack following the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Local debate roiled over whether outlets should refrain from producing images of Mohammad, as Islamic teaching forbids, or whether doing so is a celebration of Frances history of criticizing all religions. After all, the magazine often lampoons religious leaders like the pope.

Thousands took to Frances streets to defend that history. On Sunday, they rallied in major cities like Paris, Lyon, and Marseille in defiance of the attack, in Patys memory, and to bolster the notion that freedom of expression in France has no limits even if that leads one to show images of the Islamic prophet.

We are the result of our history: These values of liberty, secularism and democracy cannot remain just words, a demonstrator in Paris told French media. We have to keep them alive, and being here helps do that.

Politicians who attended the rallies made similar comments. I want teachers to know that, after this ignoble act, the whole country is behind them, French Prime Minister Jean Castex said on Sunday. This tragedy affects each and every one of us because, through this teacher, it is the republic that was attacked.

Importantly, the number of racist attacks in France, including against Muslims, has dropped in recent years. Such statistics offer hope that the potential scapegoating of Muslims in the coming weeks and months may not lead to a rise in hate crimes.

But Macrons policies and the aftermath of the attack indicate that Muslims are once again under a national microscope. That, at the very least, wont help with the assimilation problems the country aims to solve.

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand whats happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you havent, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

See the article here:

Attack on teacher in France rekindles debate on free speech and Islam - Vox.com

Why We Must Maintain Sanctity of Free Speech and Ethics in Journalism – The Leaflet

As a hallmark of modern society, freedom of speech and press has seen consistent erosion in recent times. Journalists must rededicate themselves to the ideals of objectivity and scientific inquiry that made journalism a noble profession, writes MOIN QAZI.

Comment is free, butfacts are sacred

-C P Scott

Free speech or the freedom of expression is the modern civilizations most precious gift to human society. Free-speech advocates typically claim that the value of unfettered expression outweighs any harm it might cause, offering assurances that any such harm will be minimal.

The key to the invention of free speech was the recognition of pluralismthat, in any human population, there will be people with irreconcilably different understandings of the truth.

While free speech is not absolute in most societies, the qualifying restrictions are only those which constrict speech which may be deleterious to the social good.

Repressing speech has costs, but so does allowing it.

A mature way to judge the system would be to look at both sides of the ledger. Free speech cant be reaffirmed by drowning out its opponents. It has to be defended as, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, an experiment as all life is an experiment.

Speech is a tool of change and revolution and a free press is the best public medium of expression of free speech.

A free press is the foundation of a healthy and vibrant democracy. Transparency and vigilance, which are hallmarks of an independent press, are critical to democracy. They also serve as powerful weapons against forces, ranging fromcorruptionto bad business practices that undermine economic prosperity.

The vision of better, stronger, and more robust economies is not possible without high-quality journalism.

In an ideal world, journalism is a profession of incredible integrity and journalists are among the most dexterous and skilled people in the world.

We have all benefited from the work of persistent journalists who put life, limb, family and even sanity on the line in their pursuit of truth. There is no sane, decent, and democratic polity possible without journalists who challenge power and relentlessly pursue to disseminate the truth.

It is however tragic that press freedom and independence, a staple ingredient of all great democracies worldwide, is declining.

Newspapers every morning have pages and pages of advertorial content, and newspaper editors know, as do we all, that it becomes impossible to distinguish between paid news and actual, unbiased news.

The press once seemed to have a conscience, thanks to historys painful social conflicts and questions of war and peace. The world, however, has changed, and many of us may be in the time warp of old values. Like all institutions, the media has also suffered. Whatever its position or character, a press should have a soul of its own.

In the modern journalistic paradigm, the news has become not what the facts are, but what men wish to see.

Human beings are poor witnesses, easily misled by a personal bias, profoundly influenced by their social environment. As products of their society, journalists are no exceptions

Perhaps the most vulnerable institution is the free press, and the most disposable people are journalists.

If theyre doing their job right, they can have friends in powerful places. Around the world, new systems of control are taking hold. They are stifling the global conversation and impeding the development of policies and solutions based on an informed understanding of the local realities.

We are seeing new abuses that were unimaginable earlier.

Newspapers every morning have pages and pages of advertorial content, and newspaper editors know, as do we all, that it becomes impossible to distinguish between paid news and actual, unbiased news.

Regulations for these malpractices have yet to be put in place.

Paid news is a fraud on the public and, when it is passed off as the real thing, must be regulated.

One good development in modern times has been technology. It has made it more and more difficult for a small group to effectively control the means of communication. This has also been aided by the proliferation of social media.

Yet, despite the safeguards for freedom of expression, several societies continue to use diabolic methods for chilling free speech and free press.

For the media to be credible, it has to take responsibility for getting its facts right.

That means digging deep, talking to a range of people to get the different sides of the story, and checking their facts rigorously. It should not hesitate to root out and expose lies, hypocrisy, and corruption, but has to be sure of its facts before doing so.

Walter Lippmann, who would become the most influential champion of journalistic objectivity, believed in the reimagination of journalism as a kind of scientific inquiry, subject to the disciplines of testing and verification.

Protecting the freedom of the press is a dynamic area of law.

Shifting trends and the advancement in communication technology require a re-examination of the underlying principle and its application in new contexts. The constant evolution requires deep thinking and the introduction of proper checks and balances. It may at times be difficult to strike the right balance. Freedom of the press, like several other precious freedoms, must be placed outside the reach of political exigency.

Walter Lippmann, who would become the most influential champion of journalistic objectivity, believed in the reimagination of journalism as a kind of scientific inquiry, subject to the disciplines of testing and verification. In his book, Liberty and the News, Lippman argues that good reporting must be based on the exercise of the highest scientific virtues. According to him, the best reporters are not slick persons who scoop the news, but the patient and fearless men of science who have laboured to see what the world really is.

Journalists will need to rededicate themselves to the mission that made journalism the noble calling of so many great women and men.

Journalists will need to rededicate themselves to the mission that made journalism the noble calling of so many great women and men. Their commitment to the values of liberty and freedom has earned the press the status of the Fourth Estate alongside the other three custodians of free speech and democracy.

It is time journalists reaffirmed their commitment to the credo of Joseph Pulitzer III (1913-1993), the founder of the worlds gold standard in journalism, the Pulitzer Prize: We will illuminate dark places and, with a deep sense of responsibility, interpret these troubled times.

(Moin Qazi is a development professional. Views are personal.)

Originally posted here:

Why We Must Maintain Sanctity of Free Speech and Ethics in Journalism - The Leaflet

Free speech should not be used to push a political agenda – Binghamton University Pipe Dream

On Oct. 8, Pipe Dream reported that Binghamton University is being investigated by the Department of Education for allegedly failing to protect the free speech rights of conservative student groups. Two months earlier, the BU College Republicans and Young Americas Foundation (YAF) had filed a lawsuit alleging the existence of a Speech Suppression Policy which supposedly authorizes [BU] officials . to prohibit, chill, oppose and shut down speech with which they, or other students and faculty, disagree. Now that one of the most tense cultural cleavages has made its way into BU, we must ask what exactly the debate over freedom of speech means in the realm of academia.

On Nov. 14, 2019, the College Republicans and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) held a preplanned tabling event, displaying pro-gun signs. Earlier that day, in Santa Clarita, California, there was a school shooting in which the gunman killed two students before shooting himself. Even after the news broke here in New York, the students chose to keep the pro-gun signs up. This crucial stipulation, in my view, is what led to roughly 200 students showing up to the Spine in order to protest the group.

We often overlook the reality that with freedom comes the responsibility of how we use our freedoms, and the associated consequences of our actions. Thus, whenever we express ourselves, particularly when expressing unpopular opinions, we must likewise be prepared to own up to the consequences of our actions. So when these student groups chose to continue displaying their signs, even after hearing there was a mass shooting and were well aware that these images may provoke a passionate reaction, they shouldnt be surprised, or even complain, when other students respond to them even in a group of 200.

Its also been noted that TPUSA has not yet been chartered by the BU Student Association (SA), nor did they receive a permit to table. However, since BU is a public institution, it is subject to First Amendment regulations, particularly the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which guarantees freedom of expression in public schools with the exception of speech which causes undue disruption to the educational process (e.g. inappropriate behavior in a classroom). So, for the sake of argument, lets assume that the First Amendment rights of these groups trumps University regulation.

That being said, I believe that some at the initial protest went too far in destroying the property of the student groups. Likewise, I also believe that the disruption of Arthur Laffers Trump, Tariffs, Trade Wars events was unacceptable. Even if one cant grant me that it is morally wrong to disrupt unpopular speech, from a practical standpoint there is no utility in doing so and is politically regressive, allowing groups such as TPUSA to use these incidents in order to demonize the opposition.

Despite the actions of these protesters, upon carefully and objectively examining the Universitys response to these events and the protests they sparked, although insufficient, it seems theres nothing to prove the existence of any Speech Suppression Policy. This isnt to say that no one should have been accountable for the disruption of Laffers speaking engagement, but that accountability falls on the individuals and the organizations which promoted the disruption of the event, not the University administration.

It has become typical of conservatives across the country to often deride institutions of higher education for allegedly promoting a liberal agenda, and by extension suppressing conservative viewpoints. As such, conservatives have taken the mantle as the defenders of freedom of speech and groups, such as TPUSA and its BU chapter have used Novembers events to catapult themselves into the national spotlight, garnering notoriety in conservative circles. Yet when Black Lives Matter protesters are assaulted by police, or detained without due process, these groups have remained silent, revealing the true purpose of these accusations and others like them across the nation.

Conservative groups dont really care about defending free speech rights, or at least the free speech rights of their opponents. Rather, conservative organizations employ a scorched Earth approach to politics, seeking to incite political tensions as they did last November not just for the purpose of publicity, but to take political conversations away from major issues and shift them toward the actions of individuals, who are framed as being representative of the entire political opposition (i.e. the Left).

Although I believe the traditional left-right binary is an inaccurate method of viewing our politics, this country is indeed divided. Not between left and right, however, but between students with a multicultural outlook and those who are more nationalistic two competing ideas of what the country should look like. The battle for free speech is the latest manifestation of the culture war, with students caught up in interpersonal conflict, calling one another every kind of -ist in the book (e.g. fascist, communist, etc.), while ignoring the substance of the issues they are fighting about.

But rather than debating the issues in and of themselves, one side seeks to incite others for political gain, while the other falls for it. Let me be clear that I, in no way, support the disruption of anyones speech, and I believe that progressive student organizations should avoid the temptation to lash out in the face of provocation. But whats most important is that all political conversations are substantive when we do discuss issues like freedom of speech, we must also consider them in the context of movements such as Black Lives Matter, which has seen massive suppression at the hands of state actors.

From police officers driving into protesters in New York City to masked Department of Homeland Security agents arresting protesters without proper due process, protesters and organizers for Black Lives Matter have systematically had their civil liberties violated, all while groups like our campus chapter of TPUSA have declared Its time for leftist thugs to pay. Rather than getting bogged down in petty arguments with conservative groups, leftists and those who claim to truly support free speech must stand in solidarity with movements like Black Lives Matter, which have actually seen their free speech rights violated only then do we actually defend the speaking rights of all people.

Colin Mangan is an undeclared sophomore.

Read the original post:

Free speech should not be used to push a political agenda - Binghamton University Pipe Dream

Free Speech and Media Freedom in Corporate India : Countering Their Negative Image – Economic and Political Weekly

There would, perhaps, be no better time in which Sukumar Muralidharan could write a book reflecting on the political implications of the right to free speech in India. At a time when citizens, activists and intellectuals are being put behind bars because they spoke against the government, against the draconian laws from the colonial period, and against the exploitative economic policies of the state, Muralidharan asks the right questions, at the right time. Can freedom of speech survive in a market-driven society where civil liberty is overridden by consumer choices? What kind of journalistic practice protects free speech and journalistic freedom in a fascist state? And, lastly, can social media save the civil society from fake news?

Muralidharans book offers an insiders perspective but from a distance. Although having been a journalist all his life, he is a practising academic. This discursive interface is manifested in the manner he handles intertwined contexts like nationalism, public, civility, state, and media with clinical detachment on the one hand and absolute care on the other.

The book contains eight chapters apart from the introduction and epilogue. Each chapter unfolds with a truth, followed by the deconstruction of that truth in light of freedom of speech. Muralidharan engages extensively and unapologetically with the idea of freedomwhat goes and what remains. Chapter 1 is titled A Patchy Freedom: Commerce, Class and the Value of Speech. It opens with political and historical contexts leading to the emergence of the universal idea of freedom of speech. However, soon it also asks the obvious questions: Who can speak after all? Can freedom of speech be absolute? Or is it class-specific? Whose freedom of speech do we protect and whose do we not? Here, one is reminded of Gayatri Spivaks (1990) legendary and undeniable question: Can the subaltern speak? Echoing similar concerns, Muralidharan suggests that the rise of a corporatised democracy in India is the ultimate blow to free speech and only those with power have the right to speak. Taking Vilfredo Paretos (1991) elite theory forward, Muralidharan asserts that we are living amidst a major democratic deficit where only the power elite enjoys absolute freedom of speech to the near exclusion of the public at large. In that light, what once constituted a universal and fundamental right of citizens in India, is now reduced to an exclusive coterie. Speech is valued only where the money flows.

Taking this point further, in Chapter 2 Nationalism: Citizens Great and Small, he argues that the way nation-building and nationalism emerged in the postcolonial period in India has created a visible social cleavage between the Hindus as the majority and the Muslims as the so-called minority. Consequently, nationalism or the communal manifestation of jingoism is a big roadblock to free speech. Print media in post-independence India has systematically fuelled this anti-Islam feeling to the extent that media neutrality sounds banal today. On the other hand, privatisation of media houses and gradually of every other enterprise in India has produced a standardised consumer behaviour that though indicates growth but demonstrates little cultural diversity that is the backbone of the Indian society. One is reminded of Noam Chomskys (2011) five filters that media houses apply to the news-making process before disseminating them. In a similar fashion, Muralidharan here asserts that anti-Islam sentiments (like the anti-communism sentiments of post-war America) have been mainstreamed in India through print media and popular culture, especially since the post-Babri Masjid demolition (1992) period.Ramayanaand Mahabharatabecame two pinnacles of Hindu culture that Arvind Rajagopal (2001) later critiqued in his extensive works on the Indian public sphere. The usage of the terms great and small in the title of this chapter reflect upon the terms great and little traditions that Yogendra Singh (1986) coined inModernization of Indian Tradition: A Systemic Study of Social Changewith the implication that Brahminical Hindu caste culture has indeed been the great tradition in India. Consequently, it is not just the elite and the powerful but the Hindu high-caste citizens who have the privilege to free speech.

In The State: Exceptions and the Uses of Ambiguity, Muralidharan offers several illustrations from the recent past in India to prove his point. In the last six years under the present regime, India has witnessed random arrests, police brutality and state-sponsored terrorism systematically meted out against tribals, Maoists, activists, journalists and intellectuals. In view of this, Muralidharan asserts that the states that hide the inconvenient truth do not allow journalism to report on the ordinary human sensibility (p 139). He adds that the present Indian states engagement with the Constitution is shrouded in mystery and media freedom to reporting of truth is heavily compromised as a result. He blames the corporate media and rapid commercialisation of the industry for this.

A Glimmer of Hope

However, the future is not totally grim, since the public always find ways to assert, to resist and to have their voices heard. With this high note, he writes Chapter 3 titled Civil Society: Media and the Politics of Anti-politics. Anti-politics here implies the rise of the spontaneous movements led by young people, students and farmers all across the world; for example, the Arab Spring. As part of the new social movements, these spontaneous uprisings defy organised, hierarchical and often misogynistic politics of the mainstream; they are organised around direct participation of young people with lived experiences they are trying to resist and bring in substantial changes in society at large. The political position of these kinds of anti-politics is based on faith in the power of the people. This chapter brings the famous Chilean song back in our everyday conscienceY el pueblo unido Jamsservencido(And the united people will neverbe defeated).

However, rise and sustenance of the anti-politics of the people is not possible, at least, in its present, fruitful sense without the virtual platform of social media, Muralidharan acknowledges. Like Rajagopal, he asserts that the internet has indeed emerged as the digital public sphere, but he is cautious to point out that such digital spheres are constantly under police surveillance. In other words, as Foucault suggested, there is no escape from governmentality. Next, Muralidharan also warns us against the brutality of the social mediaone should not be nave to consider social media as the holy grail of resistance. More often than not, the state uses the digital spaces not just for stalking, but also for systematic hate speeches against its own citizens. In fact, debates around what constitutes counter speech while what is hate speech have been doing rounds for quite some time in public discourses now. Taking them forward, Muralidharan says that civility of the civil society suffers a major setback in social media as the digital spaces are infested with fake accounts and hate speechesboth created by information technology(IT)cells.

Satire and Laughter

While digital space in social media is a cautionary tale, one cannot stop disseminating, one cannot stop resisting, and one cannot stop expressing. Here, Muralidharan turns to political satires and cartoons to express the truth. Focusing extensively on Charlie Hebdo and the attack in its office in Paris in 2015, in the next chapter Satire: The Power of Laughter and the Laughter of Power, he highlights the boon and the bane of satire in authoritarian regimes. One cannot deny that several cartoonists and satirists have been targets the world over for a very long time. Banksy, one of the most popular and prominent satirists of recent times, is anonymous. What does that tell us about the dystopic world we live in? While we revel at the power of laughter in satires, we employ anonymity to cherish that laughter.

In Chapters 5 and 6 Market: Free Speech and the Commercial Imperative and Advertising: Transparency as a Virtue Admired at a Distance, Muralidharan throws light on the reasons behind the dystopia that is now so hard to defeat. In a market-dominated economy and society, free speech is a fiction, he says (p 265). In that sense, if there is no free speech, how can there be media freedom? Whoensures medias access to space and time without unnecessarystate intervention? As a matter of fact, one is not sure whose freedom is moreimportantthe freedom of the public tochoose or the freedom of the advertiser to enforce? In view of that, when news is a commodity, readers are the consumershence, truth, like consent, can also be tailored and manufactured to suit the emotional demands of the latter. Here, advertising plays a significant role.There was a time in the pre-liberalisation,privatisation and globalisation(LPG)era when advertisements financiallysupported news making; now, the advertisement is the news. The global takeover of advertisement corpuses implies gigantic corporate control of airspaces to the extent that media houses close to the regime create and disseminate advertisement contents camouflaged as news. Muralidharan offers the excellent example of brand Modi created by theTimes of India,Dainik Jagran, etc, just before the run-up to the 2014 general elections in India through mediated buzzwords likeModi Wave, Ab ki Bar/Modi Sarkar, Har Har Modi/Har Ghar Modi, NaMo, to name a few. Hence, it is no exaggeration to say, as Muralidharan does, that news has been replaced with advertisement and caters to the demand of the market. This renders the entire discussion of media freedom irrelevant.

This brings us to the last and bare-it-all chapter Journalism: Paid Speech in Sold Media. We have travelled from patchy freedom to paid speech. Be prepared to be Kafkaesque in a world of post truth where one pays their way through the news they want to read. Paid media has witnessed catastrophicsuccess, meandering through fake newsand branding (p 397). Readers have already reached a point of deconstruction from where there is no return. However, the author does offer a slight ray of hopewhat if we are ever able torebuild the journalistic discourse to accommodate freedom back? There is no denying that these are the hopes one lives withnotwithstanding their absurdity.

A well-researched book with an essential ingredient of primary data for anthropological validation, it stands out and is all set to survive the test of time. One is continuously reminded of Faiz Ahmed Faizs famous lines:Bol, ke labh azad hain tere/Bol, zubaan ab tak teri hain.Muralidharan has weaved through the idea of free speech intricately throughout the text and driven the point substantially homefreedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of expressionhence, a free media is not an entry point but an end product of the right to free speech, especially in a neo-liberal world. This book points out that it is worth preserving the pragmatic identification of the range of the media as the portals of free speech, truth and free expressionfrom news reports to cartoons and satires to cinema to digital media. Muralidharan has not compartmentalised his vision of freedom, restricting it to print or television. Rather, he tests his hypothesis with conviction across spectrum, but sadly, yet diligently, yields the same resultsfast erosion of freedom of speech in a corporatised society. Kudos to the author for daring to include civility instead of civil society in the title, rightfully reminding the readers that meaningful participation in public life begins with being civil. In our journey from personhood to citizenship, civility is the critical minimum.

One could compare this book with Sanjay AsthanasIndias State-run Media: Broadcasting, Power, and Narrativepublished in 2019. Both Asthana and Muralidharan focus on state-media interface, but the former does so from the perspective of the nation while the latter from the standpoint of the media. Moreover, unlike Asthana, Muralidharan addresses the crucial question of what the location of free speech is if one has to assess the possibility of media freedom in India today.

References

Asthana, Sanjay (2019):Indias State-run Media: Broadcasting, Power, and Narrative, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2011):The Media Control: The Spectacular Achievement of Propaganda, New York: Seven Stories Press.

Pareto, Vilfredo (1991):The Rise and Fall of Elites: Application of Theoretical Sociology, New York: Routledge.

Rahman, Sarvat (2002):100 Poems by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.

Rajagopal, Arvind (2001):Politics after Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singh, Yogendra (1986):Modernization of Indian Tradition, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Spivak, Gayatri (1990):The Post-colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues, New York: Routledge.

Udupa, Sahana (2015):Making News in Global India: Media, Publics, Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Visit link:

Free Speech and Media Freedom in Corporate India : Countering Their Negative Image - Economic and Political Weekly