In today's decision in United States v. Weiss, Judge Charles Breyer (N.D. Cal.) dismissed a prosecution for sending harassing e-mails (in violation of 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C)) to Senator Mitch McConnell's office. The judge concluded that the e-mails weren't punishable threats of violence (more on that in a later post); but the government's chief argument was that they were constitutionally unprotected because they were "speech integral to criminal conduct"the criminal conduct being the sending of harassing e-mails, in violation of 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). Judge Breyer rejected that argument on the government's part, in my view correctly so:

As to "speech integral to criminal conduct," the government contends that "any speech of [Weiss's] that is restricted by 223(a)(1)(C) is integral to his criminal conduct in violating 223(a)(1)(C)." That reasoning is fatally circular.

"Speech integral to criminal conduct" does not mean that Congress can make a law criminalizing otherwise-protected speech, and then, because a defendant's speech violates the law, deem the speech to be "speech integral to criminal conduct." "[I]f the government criminalized any type of speech, then anyone engaging in that speech could be punished because the speech would automatically be integral to committing the offense. That interpretation would clearly be inconsistent with the First Amendment." United States v. Matusiewicz(D. Del. 2015).

As Eugene Volokh explained, the exception "can't justify treating speech as 'integral to illegal conduct' simply because the speech is illegal under the law that is being challenged. That should be obvious, since the whole point of modern First Amendment doctrine is to protect speech against many laws that make such speech illegal." Eugene Volokh, The 'Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct' Exception, 101 Cornell L. Rev. 981 (2016) (hereinafter Volokh). Moreover, "[i]t is not enough that the speech itself be labeled illegal conduct, e.g., 'contempt of court,' 'breach of the peace,' 'sedition,' or 'use of illegally gathered information.' Rather, it must help cause or threaten other illegal conduct which may make restricting the speech a justifiable means of preventing that other conduct." Id. (emphasis in original).

"Speech incident to criminal conduct" applies to speech that "is a mechanism or instrumentality in the commission of a separate unlawful act," apart from the speech itself. People v. Relerford (Ill. 2017). The exception originates from the case of Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. (1949), in which, to pressure nonunion ice-sellers, a union picketed an ice company, demanding that it agree to stop supplying ice to the nonunion ice-sellers. What the union was demanding of the ice company was illegal under Missouri law, which prohibited any agreement in restraint of trade in the sale of any product. The union's picketing therefore was intended "to effectuate the purposes of an unlawful combination, and their sole, unlawful immediate objective was to induce [the ice company] to violate the Missouri law by acquiescing ." The Court explained that while "the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most instances brought about through speaking or writing it has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language ." See also Volokh ("Many lower court decisions have cited Giboney in cases factually much like Giboney itself: cases where the speaker is soliciting the commission of some other crime.").

The existence of a separate unlawful act is key. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently explained that "statutes criminalizing the use of the Internet or an electronic device to engage in communications with a child that relate to or describe sexual conduct and the intentional solicitation of prostitution fall within the" exception, because such speech is "directly linked to and designed to facilitate the commission of a crime." In re Welfare of A.J.B. (Minn. 2019). "On the other hand," that court held that "speech advising, encouraging, or assisting another to commit suicide was not speech integral to criminal conduct because the act advocated forsuicideis not illegal."

In United States v. Osinger, which the government relies on, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant's Facebook impersonation of the victim and his posting of sexually explicit photographs of her was integral to his "course of conduct" of stalking her, which began with in- person stalking even prior to his online speech. Had Osinger not done anything but engage in free speech, the "speech integral to criminal conduct" exception should not have applied, as Judge Watford wrote in a compelling concurring opinion. See id. (Watford, J., concurring). Judge Watford agreed with the majority's holding in that case because "whatever difficulties may arise from application of the exception in other contexts, it surely applies when the defendant commits an offense by engaging in both speech and non-speech conduct, and the sole objective of the speech is to facilitate the defendant's criminal behavior." But see Volokh at 103642 (criticizing Osinger and noting that "[s]peech that is intended to annoy, offend, or distress does not help cause or threaten other crimes, the way solicitation or aiding or abetting does.").

The government also relies on United States v. Sandhu, in which the Ninth Circuit [in a nonprecedential decision] held that any speech involved in the commission of 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(D)the statute making it a crime to cause another person's phone to ring repeatedlywas "speech integral to criminal conduct," The government asserts that "[t]he same analysis applies here." Opp'n at 19. But section 223(a)(1)(D) targets conduct separate and apart from any speechspeech was irrelevant to the prohibited conduct of "caus[ing] the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with the intent to harass ." See 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(D); see also Osinger (Watford, J., concurring) (distinguishing the criminalization of pure speech from cases involving "non-communicative aspects of speech, like repeated unwanted telephone calls that are harassing due to their sheer number and frequency."). The First Amendment does not prevent Congress from criminalizing the causing of someone's phone to ring repeatedly; it does prevent Congress from criminalizing political speech.

{Imagine, for example, a law criminalizing the printing of a flyer with the intent to undermine the President. The government's argument here would mean that what is really criminalized is the printing of the flyer with bad intent, and that whatever political speech is on the flyer is integral to the criminal conduct of printing a flyer with unlawful intent. That would be absurd. As Weiss asserts: "The First Amendment limits Congress; Congress does not limit the First Amendment."}

The government also cites to United States v. Alvarez as recognizing the "speech integral to criminal conduct" exception. In fact, while the Supreme Court in Alvarez recognized the existence of that exception, it did not employ that exception to resolve the case. Alvarez had been charged with and convicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act, because he lied about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Ninth Circuit reversed Alvarez's conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Stolen Valor Act was a content-based restriction on free speech that violated the First Amendment.

Applying the government's reasoning here would have led the Court to uphold Alvarez's conviction: his speech violated the Stolen Valor Act, so it was speech integral to violating the Stolen Valor Act. Instead, the Court found that fact patterns involving "speech integral to criminal conduct" were "inapplicable[.]" Similarly, while the government argues that "[United States v. Popa (D.C. Cir 1999)] has no bearing here because it did not address the speech integral to criminal conduct exception[,]"the better interpretation of Popa is that it did not employ such an expansive interpretation of the exception because the law does not support it. Popa committed no criminal conduct other than his harassing phone calls. Why would the D.C. Circuit have bothered to undertake a lengthy analysis of intermediate scrutiny as applied to Popa's speech when it "could merely hold that the speech has been criminalized, apply the exception, and be done with it"?

As in Popa, this case involves no criminal act by Weiss apart from his violation of the statute by using his telephone to harass a public official with his speech (some of which was political). The government conceded as much at the hearing. When the Court asked the government what criminal conduct Weiss's speech facilitated, the government identified that conduct as the harassing and threatening use of a device. Weiss was not also soliciting a company to enter into an agreement in restraint of trade, he was not also engaging in a course of conduct of stalking, and he was not also conspiring to defraud the United States. Because Weiss's speech did not help cause or threaten other illegal conduct, the "speech incident to criminal conduct" exception does not apply.

{Moreover, there is no categorical exception to the First Amendment for speech made with theintent to harass someone. See Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the "right to be free of purposeful workplace harassment under the Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment did "not retract[] the freedoms enshrined in the First.").}

See the original post here:

Harassing E-Mail to Sen. McConnell Can't Be Punished as "Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct" - Reason

OAKLAND A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction banning Oakland police from using rubber or wooden bullets, stinger grenades and pepper-ball projectiles to control crowds of demonstrators and severely restricts the use of tear gas.

In his court order Wednesday, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero extended his previous restrictions in June and also ordered the Oakland Police Department to make sure that outside agencies abide by Oaklands rules if they are asked to provide mutual aid at city demonstrations or other events.

This order provides that certain crowd control tactics and munitions shall not be used except in very limited circumstances. This order should not be read as permission to use these tactics and munitions, Spero wrote.

As recognized in the Oakland Police Departments Crowd Control Policy, it remains incumbent upon OPD to uphold the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly while relying on the minimum use of physical force and authority required to address a crowd management or crowd control issue, Spero continued.

The federal magistrate judge did allow the use of tear gas, flashbang grenades and foam-tipped bullets, but only when there is an imminent threat of physical harm to a person or significant destruction of property and other techniques, such as simultaneous arrests or police formations, have failed or are not reasonably likely to mitigate the threat.

Speros order was in response to a lawsuit filed June 18 by the National Lawyers Guild on behalf of the Anti Police-Terror Project. The lawsuit alleges that Oakland police violated the constitutional rights of protesters when they used tear gas and other weapons at protesters between May 29 and June 1demonstrating for racial justice following the death of George Floyd.

The plaintiffs are pleased with the courts order, because it creates important protections for people exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly in Oakland by limiting the force that can be used against them by Oakland police and other law enforcement agencies, Oakland attorney Dan Siegel said in a statement.

The injunction is particularly important because it demands that Oakland control the tactics and weapons used by other police departments when they respond to Oakland protests under mutual aid agreements, he said.

Siegel said the Anti Police-Terror Projectwill continue to advocate for a complete ban on tear gas and similar chemical weapons because of their severe negative impact on peoples health, especially during the period of COVID-19.

Speros order specifies that none of the crowd control devices in Oakland can be used on peaceful protesters or fired indiscriminately into a crowd. They may only be targeted at the specific imminent threat justifying the deployment, he wrote.

In addition, he stated that flashbang grenades and gas canisters must be deployed at a safe distance from the crowd to minimize the risk that individuals will be struck and injured by those devices. When tear gas is used, only the minimum amount of chemical agent necessary to obtain compliance may be used, he wrote.

Oakland police are required to make at least two announcements warning protesters to voluntarily disperse and informing them that, if they do not disperse, they will be subject to arrest, the order stated. Police must identify at least two means of escape and allow the crowd enough time to leave.

Many of the rules had already been established in a federal court order that was negotiated after a 2003 protest at the Port of Oakland that included police firing less-than-lethal munitions at protesters.

In June, Spero issued a temporary restraining order against the police department that limited the use of tear gas and rubber bullets during demonstrations.

Under Wednesdays court order, Oakland police must now make their badges and nameplates visible on their uniform or helmets during demonstrations and must have their body-worn cameras on and recording at all times. Police vehicles, including motorcycles, cannot be used to disperse crowds.

In addition, the judge ordered Oakland police incident and operations commanders and others to undergo crowd control training by Nov. 1.

The order requires Oakland police to wear face masks and gloves whenever they interact with people because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

The Oakland Police Department will continue to abide by the court orders, said Officer Johnna Watson, Oakland police public information officer, in a Thursday statement.

See more here:

Federal court order restricts Oakland police use of tear gas, rubber bullets - East Bay Times

A supporter of President Hashim Thaci wearing a hat with the American flag and a mask with the KLA emblem. Photo: EPA-EFE/ Valdrin Xhemaj

Kosovo MPs are pushing to finalize enforcement of a draft law on Protection of the Kosovo Liberation Army War Values, despite US concern that it may violate freedom of speech.

On July 29, the US Ambassador to Kosovo, Philip Kosnett, reminding Kosovos leaders to focus on the fight against COVID-19 and on economic recovery, on Twitter raised concern that the proposed KLA Values Law criminalizes free speech, intimidates citizens, and is costly.

The concern has arisen because the draft law obliges any public official and citizen of the Republic of Kosovo to respect and protect the war values determined by this law in any time and circumstance within the country and abroad.

The draft law attempts to legalize an institutional and civic obligation to protect the image of the guerrilla army that took on Serbian forces in the 1990s, and pioneered the creation of an independent state.

It predicts the establishment of a War Museum, and the Day of Remembrance of the war that ended in 1999 with the withdrawal of Serbian forces following a prolonged NATO campaign.

According to the law, the so-called values of war include the KLA itself as an armed military formation, its veterans, flag, soldiers oath, coat of arms, the General Staff, Political Directorate, Staffs of operational areas and archives, as well as the Adem Jashari Memorial Complex in Prekaz and other complexes.

Budgetary implications, if the Assembly approves the draft law, will be about 2.25 million euros, without considering construction of the War Museum.

The draft law was supported by the government on July 14 and forwarded to the presidency of the Assembly. It was proposed by the Democratic Party of Kosovo, PDK, on April 2018, but delayed by the change of government after former prime minister Ramush Haradinaj resigned in July 2019.

He was summoned by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, KSC, based in the Hague, which was established to try former KLA members for war crimes.

The PDK and the Organization of War Veterans of the KLA are optimistic that MPs will back the law despite their political differences.

The draft law came back to the fore when President Hashim Thaci who was the KLAs political leader during the 1998-99 war was interviewed by the Hague-based warcrime prosecutors for four days from July 13. They can easily conclude that I have not committed any war crimes, Thaci had told the media on July 17 after the interview had ended.

The Hague-based Prosecutors Office announced on June 24 that it had filed a ten-count indictment with the KSC, charging Thaci, PDK leader Kadri Veseli and other former KLA members with a range of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture.

Unlike the PDK and KLA veterans, Vetevendosje, the largest opposition party in Kosovo, has voiced some objections to the draft law. Rexhep Selimi, head of the Vetevendosje parliamentary group, said on July 18 that the content of the draft law did not match the topic it addresses. Despite that, Vetevendosje has said it support the adoption of a law to protect the KLA and its values.

In late April 2020, former Prime Minister Albin Kurti, from Vetevendosje, dismissed Shkelzen Gashi as his adviser following Gashis comments about crimes committed by KLA fighters.

Read more:

Kosovo Pushes Ahead with Law to Protect KLA's Reputation - Balkan Insight

On the heels of a bombshell report from ESPNallegingChina'sNBA training academies abused theiryoung players, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is calling on the United States to reexamine its relationship with the East Asian power player.

In aWednesday interviewon"Fox News @ Night,"theacting Senate Intelligence Committee chairman said he found the allegations from ESPN to be "troubling."

ACTIVISTS PUSH FOR INVESTIGATION OVER CLAIMS CHINA IS FORCIBLY HARVESTING ORGANS IF UIGHUR POPULATION

Rubio said while the NBA was seeing dollar signs in China's massive market, the problem is that it's "not just any other market."

"This is a totalitarian government that doesn't have any of the same concepts of freedom of speech or human rights that we have in the United States or in many parts of the world, and you've got to play by the rules," he said.

Rubio noted that the NBA was likely in the same position as a lot of other large corporations that do business with China under the watchful eye of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its rules.

"They have to look the other way on some pretty atrocious actions on the part of the Chinese Communist Party," he said.

Host Shannon Bream highlighted recent Fox News Digitalreporting on the oppression of the beleaguered Uighur Muslim community which called attention toactivist complaints pushing for an investigation into claims that China was forcibly harvesting organs ofUighur workers.

"Earlier this month, two Uighur activist organizations the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement and the East Turkistan Government in Exile filed acomplaintto the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Beijing leadership, alleging that the top brass had committed genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uighurs, including the stealing of organs from the mostly Muslim Turkic ethnic group and urging an inquiry," wrote Hollie McKay.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - FEBRUARY 15: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver speaks to the media during a press conference at the United Center on February 15, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Stacy Revere/Getty Images)

The move comes on the heels of a damningexpos finalized earlier this year by the seven-person, London-basedChina Tribunal...[which]determined with 'certainty beyond a reasonable doubt'that 'in China, forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time,'" she continued.

Rubio said he had heard similar allegationsand that the "world deserves to know" if there is evidentiary support for these "horrific" claims.

"But, what we already know for sure is they've detained people, they put them in camps, they try to strip them of their identity, they forcethem to change their name, renounce their faith and religion. All sorts of terrible things," he listed. "And, forced labor -- they forced them to work.And, we know that there are Western companies that have benefited from that."

The senator said while the United States has to have a relationship with China -- the second-largest economy in the world, a nuclear power, and the most populous nation on the planet -- it must be "a balanced relationship."

"Meaning we can't continue to allow them to cheat, steal our jobs, and create unfair advantages over us," he explained. "And, it also has to be one that doesn't require us to abandon our fundamental print and essence that that requires us to look the other way when they do these horrible things, or when they crack down on free speech, or when they break the rules when it comes to the commitments they've made on Hong Kong."

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

"The price of that balance of engagement cannot be that we abandon our principles, our ideals, and most importantly, our national interests," Rubio urged.

Read more here:

Sen. Rubio: NBA is a partner of the Chinese Communist Party, looks the other way on 'atrocious' actions - Fox News

The jailing of five Egyptian influencers on charges of "violating public morals" over videos they published on TikTok has set a new precedent for controls that women face online, as well as the social limits increasingly placed upon them.

But though the internet is now apparently a place unsafe for Egyptian women to express themselves, it is also a platform where they are rallying - both to defend those convicted over their TikTok posts and to raise awareness for abuse meted out to them by men.

On Monday, five young women were sentenced by a court to two years in prison and each fined 300,000 Egyptian pounds ($18,750). Their alleged crime was to publish content that was morally problematic for the public and Egyptian family values.

The content, however, would seem to many as innocent and innocuous and has raised alarm bells for both women's rights activists and proponents of free speech.

'These women were simply being targeted for being women who dare to be different or autonomous'

- Reem Abdellatif, journalist

One of the women, Mowada al-Adham, used the app to share a video with her three million followers of the influencer dancing, lip-syncing and posing in a convertible car while listening to music.

Another, Haneen Hossam, who has a following of one million, uploaded footage detailing how others could use the app to earn money.

The videos are reminiscent of many of the trends TikTok users around the word take part in, including comedy sketches and voiceover skits. However, the Egyptian authorities' response has been swift and severe.

According to Egyptian media, Adham was asked to submit to a virginity test which was requested for the investigation, but refused to do so. The United Nations has previously called for a ban on virginity testing, which violates human rights and can cause pain, health issues and trauma.

Reem Abdellatif, an Egyptian-American journalist who has previously used social media to campaign for women's empowerment and education, said women in Egypt were afforded little freedom of speech, especially those who come from the working class.

It is unfortunate but common for vague and loosely worded laws to be constantly used to repress women and sometimes activists in Egypt These women were simply being targeted for being women who dare to be different or autonomous, she told Middle East Eye.

Egypt's al-Azhar poised to be stripped of its power

Women and girls in Egypt are still struggling to have their basic rights, such as bodily autonomy and personal freedoms, but working class women from low-income backgrounds struggle with this for more obvious reasons.

Much of the backlash against the influencers has come from Egypt's state-backed media.

In a teary video posted to Instagram in April, days before the five were arrested, Hossam said the media hadtaken her content and shared it out of context, claiming that what she is doing is inappropriate.

She said many do not understand how people can make money through social media, and stressed it is no different from presenters and public figures earning a living on TV.

Rumours have ruined lives. I have never said anything bad in my videos, I never said I wanted girls to do inappropriate things to earn money. I said respectable girls could earn money on social media. No one works without getting paid in return, so how is this different? she said.

In another video, which has been viewed over 800,000 times, Hossam added that she had been on the receiving end of an onslaught of harassment, which had caused her significant distress.

What are you benefiting from by destroying someone? Beating someone when they are down is wrong there are people doing much worse things, why are people focussing on me? Bloggers are not hurting anyone, why are people creating rumours with no evidence? she said.

According to Amr Magdi, a Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch, the recent wave of arrests reflect the current state of the country, which is heavily monitored and censored by authorities.

Since the 2013 military coup that brought President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to power, human rights abuses have skyrocketed. Tens of thousands of Egyptians accused of being critical of the government have been imprisoned under Sisi.

Social controls are becoming ever more prevalent and punitive.

Its very concerning and its an abusive campaign of arrests and persecution mainly of women and girls, based on what they wear and how they behave it shows what direction the country is heading in, Magdi told MEE.

The Egyptian law is very vague and broad. They talk about acts which undermine family values, but the law does not define what these acts are, so citizens do not know when they are violating the law," he added.

"The punishments for these acts are also extremely disproportionate. It can be up to five years in prison, or sometimes more, with large fines.

All five of the TikTok influencers were prosecuted under Egypt's 2018 cybercrime law, legislation that has been widely criticised by human rights campaigners and activists for being vague and used to unfairly target people.

Not only can authorities imprison and fine people for content posted online deemed to be inconsistent with family principles or the values of Egyptian society, the law allows any social media accounts with more than 5,000 followers to be monitored.

Like Abdellatif, Magdi believes that the recent wave of arrests have unjustly targeted people from lower social classes, suggesting that the government allows wealthy Egyptians to behave in certain ways, but not the general public.

'What these women did you can see every day on TV and in high-class resorts, beaches, butno one goes there to arrest them'

- Amr Magdi, HRW

This perpetrates another type of discrimination against social economic status, because what these women did you can see every day on TV and in high-class resorts, beaches, butno one goes there to arrest them, he said.

The arrests have brought into question what the Egyptian government perceives as public morals and the role of women in Egyptian society. Magdi described the message being sent to society as "deeply chilling and frightening", predicting more crackdowns to come.

We have seen Sisi himself talking about women in derogatory ways on several occasions, for example the role of women at home and how they should support their families and husbands at home, he said.

Under Sisi, the Egyptian government has seized close control of the country's media. Not only does it heavily regulate how outlets are run, the government also influences the way people are presented in films and the arts.

Egyptian intelligence has moved to monitor and monopolise the media. One of the motives behind this has been to dictate how women should behave and look in TV dramas,"Magdi said."There are many indications that there is a coordinated effort by actors in the government to oppress women and strip women of some of their rights.

With traditional media closely regulated and street protests non-existent after the government's deadly crackdown on Egyptians demonstrating against the 2013 coup, women have been forced to turn their discontent online.

Activists and social media users have been using the hashtag "If the Egyptian family allows" to decry women's treatment and highlight the ease with which they can be arrested on such charges.

Meanwhile, a petition has been started online, where over 2,800 people have signed to call for authorities to stop targeting women on TikTok, and for the National Council for Women to provide legal support for the women currently detained.

The petition questions what the family values that are allegedly being violated are, and denounces the authorities for targeting and detaining women.

We fear and worry about this systematic crackdown which targets low-income women. We can't ignore the underlying guardianship over TikTok women. Because of their class, they are being punished and denied their own right to their bodies, to dress freely and to express themselves," the petition states.

Social media has taken particular prominence for Egyptian women in recent weeks, as thousands have used the platforms to highlight harassment and sexual assault, in what has been called Egypts #MeToo movement.

Waves of allegations and accusations have flooded social media, with women calling out their harassers and demanding for them to be held accountable.

'The online space has become almost unsafe for women, ironically, who are utilising social media to create awareness and press for change'

- Reem Abdellatif, journalist

It has shown that online pressure can work. The outpouring of accusations and solidarity online prompted an anonymity bill to be passed in Egypt, allowing victims of abuse to have their identity protected.

The bill came days after authorities arrested a 22-year-old who was accused by around 100 women of sexual crimes, including blackmail, rape and online sexual harassment.

That being said, as the TikTok case shows, the internet is far from a safe space for women. Recent reports show that women in the Middle East and North Africa region are facing increased harassment and abuse online, with little legislation to protect them.

According to Abdellatif, women in Egypt and around the Middle East are being targeted for the messages they post online, particularly when they go against societal norms or a patriarchal society.

The online space has become almost unsafe for women, ironically, who are utilising social media to create awareness and press for change," she said, adding that abuse has intensified in recent weeks due to the Egyptian MeToo movement and the coronavirus lockdown.

"What happens online is very similar to what happens offline: systemic silencing of women who dare go against the grain, or simply have an opinion that is independent of society's misogynistic mainstream teachings.

Go here to read the rest:

Egypt is cracking down on women's freedoms on and offline. But they are fighting back - Middle East Eye

BY HANNAH MCCLELLAN, News + Record Staff

PITTSBORO Last month, a GoFundMe started by a Chatham County resident to protest the large Confederate flag that stood on U.S. Hwy. 64 East Business Route in Pittsboro raised nearly $11,000. Since July 13, the flag has had a new neighbor a 24-foot Black Lives Matter billboard.

The GoFundMe raised enough funds to cover the cost of keeping the sign for a year, but now, the billboard will likely be taken down in September. Thats because Pittsboro resident Sam White the owner of the property both the sign and flag sit on is deciding not to renew his lease for the billboard, according to an email from Lamar Advertising Company, which owns and updates the board.

In that email, posted to the Facebook page Chatham Takes Action, Lamar Advertising said the owners decision to not renew the lease will cause the board and the entire structure to be removed from that property. The company said it would assist in finding an alternate location for the billboard or grant a refund for the unused time.

To learn more about the timeline of the BLM billboard and its neighboring Confederate flag, click here.

The billboard, funded by residents as a way to show Confederate flags do NOT represent Pittsboro, was backed by social justice organizations Emancipate NC and RREPS (Recidivism Reduction Educational Program Services) after Lamar Advertising required a legal entity or organization to accompany a Paid for tagline at the bottom of the billboard. Kerwin Pittman, the founder and director of RREPS, organized the backing from the organizations.

The GoFundMe was organized by a Pittsboro resident who began going by the initials LC after the campaign gained traction on social media. In just two days, the GoFundMe raised enough money for the sign to be erected for six months. In the end, the group raised enough money to pay for the sign for a full year and to donate extra funds to local social equity organizations. On July 15, the organizer posted an update message to the GoFundMe that $1,000 of the extra contributions was donated to both Chatham Organizing for Racial Equity (CORE) and Emancipate NC.

Its been an exciting couple of days since the billboard went up! And it is simply beautiful, the organizer posted. It brought me to tears the first time it came into view as I drove down business 64 into Pittsboro! I am so grateful for all of the messages of support I have received, and for those who are giving their input to the press and news outlets.

Pittman, who has attended multiple protests in Pittsboro, said he believes the flag is not representative of the majority of the town.

My opinion, especially as a Black man if Im riding into a small town and one of the first things I see is a Confederate flag, that lets me know what type of town that is, he said.

Thats why adding the Black Lives Matter sign right next to the flag was so important, he added.

Seeing it seeing it was a triumphant moment, he said. But it was a sad moment at the same time it was a triumphant moment because individuals in Pittsboro wanted that sign, and it was sad because they had to do this right beside this Confederate flag.

This is not the first time there have been debates in Pittsboro surrounding Confederate flags.

On June 14, Chatham resident Tami Schwerin emailed Pittsboro and Chatham commissioners requesting symbols of terrorism be outlawed locally. Schwerin listed the Confederate flags throughout the county specifically as symbols of intimidation.

This would also put us on the right side of history, said Schwerin, who leads the nonprofit Abundance NC. I guarantee it would make national news and other municipalities would follow. Lets set the trend for creating a place of peace, inclusion and prosperity for all.

In the email, Schwerin included links to articles referencing NASCARs banning of Confederate flags at its events and the Department of Homeland Securitys addition of white supremacy to its list of domestic terrorism threats in 2019.

Chatham County Commissioner Diana Hales responded over email and said that though we may disagree with their message, all citizens are granted the freedom of speech. Hales added that the board asked the county lawyer for guidance, who advised that granting such a request would be a violation of First Amendment rights.

What people display on private property is their business, as long as they adhere to whatever setback regulations the Town or County has in place for things such as flagpoles and signage, she wrote. (Some) may see it as hate speech, but they have the right to speak. And, others have the same right of free speech to put up a billboard countering their message.

It remains to be seen whether this countering billboard standing for just a few days before organizers learned it would be removed from its spot next to the Confederate flag will be relocated.

Reporter Hannah McClellan can be reached at hannah@chathamnr.com.

See the rest here:

BLM billboard next to Confederate flag to be removed - The Chatham News + Record

Sean Moran(Breitbart)

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and a host of other House conservatives introduced legislation on Wednesday that would block big tech giants from censoring lawful political speech on the Internet.

Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Lance Gooden (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA), Jim Banks (R-IN), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Ron Wright (R-TX), and Gosar introduced the Stop the Censorship Act of 2020, which would revoke big tech companies Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act legal immunity if the tech platform were to remove lawful speech on their platform.

The House Republicans legislation aligns with recommendationsproposedby the Department of Justice.

Gosar said in a statement on Wednesday that Congress can no longer allow big tech companies to deem what is and what is not allowable free speech on the Internet. Gosar said:

Online platforms should not have special immunity to censor competition and lawful political speech. The broad and undue immunity for content and user removal granted by Section 230 must be reined in by Congress. We cannot continue to subsidize, deputize, or blackmail Silicon Valley to decide what is or isnt an allowable conversation. Stop the Censorship Act empowers users and limits Big Tech to the same rights and liabilities as everyone else.

Gosarintroducedthe legislation as Breitbart Newss Allum Bokhari reported on Tuesday that Internet search giant Google, whichcontrols88 percent of the Internet search market, had purged Breitbart News from its search results.

The House Judiciary Committee also plans toholdan antitrust hearing on Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Googles dominance on the Internet on Wednesday.

Freedom of speech and market competition are two of the strongest pillars of American freedom. But Big Tech, has shown little regard for either. Congress must protect the values that make America great.Banks said.

Gosars Stop the Censorship Act of 2020 would promote free speech, big tech transparency, and competition on the Internet.

The legislation would revoke big techs immunity for removing otherwise objectionable material in Section 230 and create a new standard that would set a new legal protection for the removal of unlawful, or that promotes violence or terrorism. Gosars office contended that the new legal immunity would incentivize platforms to be more transparent and abide by their own terms of service.

The Arizona conservatives office also noted that Silicon Valley companies have argued in cases such asEnigma Software v. Malwarebytesthat the otherwise objectionable term creates a legal immunity from antitrust claims.

The Stop the Censorship Act would ensure that Section 230 does not extend to antitrust claims and aims to promote competition.

The legislation also empowers users with the ability to choose their own online content filters.

Collins, a former ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said:

Freedom of speech is paramount to the fabric of America. No one should have the power to censor political speech, including Big Tech, Gooden said.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News.

More:

Paul Gosar, Conservatives Introduce Legislation to Protect 'Political Speech' on the Internet - The Jewish Voice

Updated 10:32pm EDT, Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Photo: Valentina Petrova, AP

Thousands in Bulgaria's streets demanding government resign

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) Tens of thousands of people took to the streets Wednesday in cities across Bulgaria for a third consecutive week to demand the resignation of the government and the chief prosecutor.

In the biggest anti-government protests in seven years, those in power are being accused of maintaining links to the mafia, refusing to fight corruption and reform the judiciary and suppressing freedom of speech.

President, Rumen Radev, a vocal critic of the government, is backing protesters, saying the center-right Cabinet of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov and chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev should step down.

In a public address to the nation, Radev spoke about the deep anger of the protesters. It has been piling up for years and cannot be suppressed by fear and force, he said.

Although the rallies have been mostly peaceful, there have been occasional clashes and some arrests.

In Sofia on Wednesday, protesters blocked several key intersections during business hours, bringing traffic almost to a standstill.

In the evening, a huge crowd gathered in front of the government headquarters singing the national anthem and waving national flags. People chanted Borissov, you are shame and disgrace and Resignation. Many were following calls by the organizers to set up tents outside the Cabinet building and remain there until their demands are met.

In a video on Facebook, Borissov said everyone has the right to demonstrate, but not to block roads and intersections.

Elections are coming, everyone will be able to vote. This is democracy. Imagine we lose the election and start shutting down crossroads. Is that democracy? Borissov said.

Borissov has been in power since 2009 and his third term is scheduled to end next March

Go here to see the original:

Thousands in Bulgaria's streets demanding government resign - Trumbull Times

What exactly did the Framers mean by freedom of speech, or of the press? Little is definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant. The Framers cared a good deal about the freedom of the press, as the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, written by the First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:

The statement mentions some of the values that the Founders saw as inherent in the principle of freedom of the press: the search and attainment of truth, scientific progress, cultural development, the increase of virtue among the people, the holding of governmental officials to republican values, the strengthening of community, and a check upon self-aggrandizing politicians. But broad statements such as this tell us less than we would like to know about what the freedom of the press meant to the Founders as a rule of law, when the freedom would yield to competing concerns, or whether the freedom prohibited only prior restraints or also subsequent punishments.

There were few reported Founding-era court cases that interpreted the federal and state Free Speech and Free Press Clauses, and few Founding-era political controversies excited detailed discussion of what the clauses meant. The governments of the time were small, and the statute books thin. Not many states passed laws restricting commercial advertising. Only one state law banned pornography, and that ban appears to have been unenforced until 1821. Some states had blasphemy laws, but they were largely unenforced from the early 1700s until the 1810s. No laws banned flag-burning, campaign spending, or anonymous speech.

This may but does not necessarily mean that such speech was broadly believed to be constitutionally protected; then, as today, the government did not ban all that it had the power to ban. But the paucity of such bans meant that few people in that era had occasion to define carefully what the constitutional boundaries of speech and press protection might be.

In fact, the most prominent free press debate of the years immediately following the Framingthe Sedition Act controversyillustrated that there was little consensus on even as central an issue as whether the free press guarantee only prohibited prior restraints on publications critical of the government, or whether it also forbade punishment for seditious speech once it was made.

In 1798, the country was fighting the Quasi-War with France. The Federalist Party controlled all three branches of the federal government, and its members suspected many Republican party stalwarts of sympathizing with France and the French Revolution and thus of fomenting disloyalty. Congress consequently made it a crime to publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings...with intent to defame the government, Congress, or the President, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations...for opposing or resisting any law of the United States...or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government. Several publishers were in fact convicted under the law, often under rather biased applications of the falsity requirement.

The Federalists actions likely represented a serious constitutional judgment, and not just political expediency. True, malicious falsehoods about the Vice PresidentThomas Jefferson, who was a leading Republicanwere not covered by the law, and the law was scheduled to expire on March 3, 1801, the day before Federalist President John Adamss term was to end. But shortly before the law expired, and after the Federalists lost the 1800 election, Federalist Representatives nonetheless tried to renew the Act; had they succeeded, the Act would have punished libels against President Jefferson and the new Democratic-Republican Congressional majority. The bill was defeated in the House by a 5349 vote, with all but four Federalists voting for it and all Republicans voting against it.

Indeed, in 1799 Federalist Congressman John Marshall (who would soon become Chief Justice), expressed doubts that the Sedition Act was wise but nonetheless argued that the free press guarantee meant only liberty to publish, free from previous restraintfree of requirements that printers be licensed, or that their material be approved before publication. Under this view, which echoed the British law as expounded by Sir William Blackstone, criminal punishment after publication was constitutional, at least if the punishment was consistent with the traditional rules of the common law. Other early American political leaders, such as James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, argued the opposite: [T]his idea ofthe freedom of the press can never be admitted to be the American idea of it; since a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them.

Likewise, Marshall and other Federalists argued that the freedom of the press must necessarily be limited, because government cannot be...secured, if by falsehood and malicious slander, it is to be deprived of the confidence and affection of the people. Not so, reasoned Madison and other Republicans: even speech that creates a contempt, a disrepute, or hatred [of the government] among the people should be tolerated because the only way of determining whether such contempt is justified is by a free examination [of the governments actions], and a free communication among the people thereon. It was as if half the country read the constitutional guarantee one way, and the other half, the other way.

The Founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meaning until a concrete controversy arose; and when a controversy did arise, people disagreed sharply on that meaning.

A Supreme Court case, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), illustrates the continuing debate over the original meaning of the clause. The question in McIntyre was whether the government could outlaw anonymous electioneering. The majority dealt with the question based on the Courts twentieth-century case law and twentieth-century First Amendment theories. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the Courts most devoted originalists, however, did focus on the original meaning discussion but reached different results.

Both Justices recognized that there was no record of discussions of anonymous political expression either in the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights, or in the state ratifying conventions. They both recognized that much political speech in the time of the Framers (such as The Federalist Papers itself) was anonymous. Indeed, much political speech justifying resistance to Parliament before the Revolution was also anonymous.

To Justice Thomas, the experience of the Founders in their own use of anonymous speechThe Federalist Papers being a classic examplewas dispositive of what they would have regarded as a vital part of the freedom of speech, particularly where political speech was at issue. Justice Scalia, however, who has a narrower view of what can be accepted as evidence of original intent apart from the text of the pro-vision itself, argued that to prove that anonymous electioneering was used frequently is not to establish that it is a constitutional right; perhaps the legislatures simply chose not to prohibit the speech, even though they had the constitutional power to do so.

Justice Thomas did produce evidence that some Founding-era commentators saw anonymous commentary as protected by the Liberty of the Press, but Justice Scalia replied that many of these were mere partisan cr[ies] that said little about any generally accepted understanding. Justice Thomas found the evidence sufficient to justify reading the First Amendment as protecting anonymous speech. Justice Scalia did not think the historical evidence of what people did necessarily shows much about what people believed they had a constitutional right to do. Instead, Scalia turned to American practices of the 1800s and the 1900s, a source that he considers authoritative where the original meaning is uncertain. A consensus on the original meaning on this subject thus remains elusive.

This having been said, on some questions it is possible to have a good idea of what the Framers thought, based on a combination of pre-Framing, Framing-era, and shortly post-Framing evidence. First, traditional libel law was seen as permissible. Several state constitutions also secured the freedom of the press and the liberty of the press, and under them, defaming another person was understood to be constitutionally unprotected.

Second, the Free Press Clause was seen as covering the press as technologyall who used printing presses to try to communicate to the public at largeand not the press in the sense of a specific industry or occupation. Professional publishers and journalists were not seen as having symbolic expression, such as paintings, effigies (whether just being displayed or being burnt), liberty poles, and the like as tantamount to verbal expression. Both would be equally punishable as libel, if they conveyed false and defamatory messages about someone. But both would also be equally covered by the freedom of speech or of the press.

Fourth, Framing-era sources treat civil tort liability for speech the same as criminal liability for constitutional purposes. Indeed, the very first court cases setting aside government action on constitutional freedom of expression grounds, an 1802 Vermont case and an 1806 South Carolina case, involved civil libel verdicts set aside because of the state constitutions Petition Clauses. Similar cases from that era applied the same principle to state Free Speech and Free Press Clauses.

As noted above, there was considerable controversy about how broad the constitutional protections were, and what the scope of the exceptions to protection might be. But the constitutional protections, whatever their substantive breadth, applied equally without regard to whether the speaker was a professional publisher, whether the communication was symbolic expression or verbal expression, and whether the case involved tort liability or criminal punishment.

Notwithstanding occasional references to originalist debatessuch as the originalist debate between Justices Thomas and Scalia in McIntyretodays free speech and free press law is not much influenced by original meaning. It mostly stems from the experience and thinking of the twentieth century, as the Court first began to hear a wide range of free speech cases only in the late 1910s. This approach has produced the following general free speech rules:

a. Incitement: Speech may be restricted if it is: (i) intended to persuade people to engage in (ii) imminent unlawful conduct, and (iii) likely to cause such imminent unlawful conduct. Outside this narrow zone, even speech that advocates lawbreaking is constitutionally protected. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

b. Libel, fraud, and perjury: Libel, fraud, and perjury may generally be punished if they consist of knowing lies, though generally not if they are honest mistakes (even unreasonable mistakes). There are, however, some situations where even honest mistakes can be punished. United States v. Alvarez (2012); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

c. Obscenity: Hard-core pornography is punishable if: (i) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in sex or excretion; (ii) the work depicts or describes, in a way that is patently offensive under contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (iii) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California (1973).

d. Child pornography: Sexually themed live performances, photographs, and movies that were made using actual children may be punished even if they do not fit within the obscenity test. This does not cover digitized pictures, drawings, or text materials, which are constitutionally protected unless they are obscene. The Court has reasoned that child pornography is unprotected because it hurts the children involved in its making, so the exception only covers cases where actual children were indeed involved. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002).

e. Threats: Speech that is reasonably perceived as a threat of violence (and not just rhetorical hyperbole) can be punished. Virginia v. Black (2003).

f. Fighting words: Face-to-face insults that are addressed to a particular person and are likely to cause an imminent fight can be punished. More generalized offensive speech that is not addressed to a particular person cannot be punished even if it is profane or deeply insulting. Cohen v. California.

g. Speech owned by others: Intellectual property laws, such as copy-right law, may restrict people from using particular expression that is owned by someone else; but the law may not let any-one monopolize facts or ideas. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985).

h. Commercial advertising: Commercial advertising is constitutionally protected, but less so than other speech (political, scientific, artistic, and the like). Misleading commercial advertising may be barred, whereas misleading political speech can-not be. Commercial advertising may also be required to include disclaimers to keep it from being misleading; such disclaimers cant be required for political speech. Recent cases hold that commercial advertising may not be restricted for paternalistic reasons, because of a fear that people will learn accurate information but will do bad things based on that informationfor example, buy more alcohol, smoke more, or prescribe more expensive pharmaceuticals than the government thinks wise. This rule applies only to speech that proposes a commercial transaction between the speaker and the listener; it does not apply to speech that is merely sold in commerce, such as books, videos, and databases. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011).

Free speech/free press law is sometimes called the tax code of constitutional law. The discussion above suggests how complex the law is, but while some of the complexity may be needless, much of it is inevitable. Communication is in many ways the most complicated of human activities, and no simple rule can properly deal with all the different kinds of harms that it can cause--or all the different kinds of harms that restricting communication can cause.

See original here:

Freedom of Speech and of the Press | The Heritage Guide to ...

Last week, the government launched details of a scheme to provide universities with access to emergency loans, should they get into financial difficulty as a result of Covid-19. Nestled into the detailed policy document was a recommendation that funding for students unions should focus on the wider student community rather than niche activism and campaigns.

But there is nothing niche about our activism and campaigns. They have led to major societal change over the last century. Without the tremendous efforts of students past and present, the world around us would be a worse place to live. Many of the UKs most notable political accomplishments have emanated from the actions of students and their brave campaigning.

In the 1970s the National Union of Students (NUS) became the first national group to campaign for homosexual rights, and we have continued to fight for equal rights for all our LGBT+ students and the wider LGBT+ community. Students coordinated boycotts against South Africa as part of the anti-Apartheid movement that ultimately persuaded Barclays to divest from the country and helped bring about the fall of Apartheid. These are victories that we can be proud of.

And students continue to campaign for transformative change, and a better society. In recent years we have successfully campaigned for half of UK universities to divest from fossil fuels, put decolonising education firmly on the national agenda, and taken a stand against sexual violence on campus. This is before we even start to mention the individual achievements of students unions in making their campuses more accessible for all of their students from gender neutral bathrooms to expanded lift access for disabled students.

This shamelessly political dog whistle from the government is insulting. They seek to dismiss all of this work and believe that universities should starve these activities of funding. Their hypocrisy in stating this in one breath while, in the next, calling on universities to promote free speech must be lost on them.

The silencing and further marginalisation of minority voices, not just on our campuses but across mainstream media and politics, is the biggest threat to free speech that we currently face, not a few cases of high-profile commentators who, despite their huge platforms, claim to be no-platformed (I prefer: democratically boycotted by students who refuse to listen to bigotry). Meanwhile, universities pay lip service to diversity and inclusion, giving marginalised communities a seat a table without recognising that the foundations it is built on are rotten. Students unions empower those who would simply fall through the cracks and remain ignored to organise for the education they deserve. In advocating for funding cuts, the government is silencing the marginalised students voices this is the real threat to freedom of speech.

As our organising comes under attack, it reaffirms my belief that we must continue to be radical. Students are constantly ahead of the curve and we cannot curb our ambition just to let others catch up. We must grasp at the root of these injustices white supremacy, transphobia, austerity and fight for what we believe in. Funding cuts, the failed project of a marketised education system where universities are made to compete against each other for students, and the devastation of the hostile environment have harmed students and their communities, as well as universities and colleges.

As we emerge from lockdown and continue to feel the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have the opportunity to change our education system for the better. We can make it more inclusive and accessible, create avenues for better lifelong learning for all and ensure that education is well-funded and staff properly paid. None of this will happen without the actions of students. We will be needed to highlight cases of injustice, to continue the fight for free, accessible, lifelong education, and to build collectivism between learners, educators and other workers at these institutions that will make our vision a reality.

While some might be scared by such a blatant attack on students unions from the government, I feel energised. They are recognising our strength and they are scared of what we might do with it. That is why there is absolutely no chance of us stopping our niche campaigns now.

See the article here:

The government wants free speech at universities but not for everyone - The Guardian

Campus of Princeton University

Judging by common metrics of success, Princeton University does well. It is highly selective, accepting only 5% of its applicants, and its 2019 endowment stood at $26.1 billion. Alumni include First Lady Michelle Obama, four U.S. Supreme Court justices, and two United States presidents, James Madison and Woodrow Wilson.

There is more to an institution than status and wealth, however, and the freedom of inquiry and expression that is the lifeblood of liberal education is in danger at this extraordinary campus. Successful in so many ways, Princeton faces a crisis of values.

Princetons commitment to the free exchange of ideas was once exemplary. In April 2015, with a clear majority vote of its faculty, it became the first university in the nation to follow the University of Chicagos lead in adopting the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression, the landmark commitment to the discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

In the tense time following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a student group called the Princeton Open Campus Coalition modeled reasoned debate among its multi-gender, multi-ethnic members. Princetons president, Christopher Eisgruber, made Keith Whittingtons book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech, a campus read, not just for incoming freshmen, but for all Princeton students. African American philosopher Cornel West and Robby George, director of Princetons James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, have demonstrated in their frequent public discussions how scholars can represent widely different worldviews yet together build consensus around shared truths. In other words, Princeton seemed unusually able not only to protect speech but even to cultivate civility in disagreement.

This year has been different. By contrast, in 201516, Princetons Trustee Committee on Woodrow Wilsons Legacy took nearly six months to determine how to approach the problem of its distinguished but controversial alumnus whose name is attached to a Princeton college and school. Its measured decision was to vote for transparency in recognizing Wilsons failings and shortcomings as well as the visions and achievements that led to the naming of the school and the college. A report from the trustees described how students and others were troubled by Wilsons past support of segregation. As president of Princeton, he had acted to bar Black students from admission, and as U.S. president, he supported the segregation of the civil service.

On June 22, 2020, in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, students and alumni demanded the public renunciation of Woodrow Wilson. This time, it took President Eisgruber but five days to reverse the 2016 decision. Little or no time was allocated for discussion or disagreement.

Many demands from students and faculty followed. Alumni of Princetons Black Justice League, which was active on campus from 201418, declared to President Eisgruber, we denounce your actions as woefully inadequate. On July 4, a letter with roughly 350 signatures of professors, staff, and graduate students listed 48 demands to further its campaign against racism. They included a call for the establishment of a faculty committee to oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty, with guidelines to be authored by a faculty committee. Other demands were extra leave time for faculty of color and the removal of the statue of John Witherspoon, slave-owner, but also past president of the college that later became Princeton and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Enter Joshua Katz, a 22-year veteran of the department of classics and holder of an endowed chair in the humanities. Self-described as a library rat and liberal democrat, he published his dissent in Quillette four days after the faculty letter appeared. He warned that many of the proposals in the July 4 faculty letter would lead to civil war on campus and erode even further public confidence. He worried that the proposed faculty committee to address racism could become a star chamber. Based on its treatment of other students, he characterized the now-defunct Black Justice League as a small local terrorist organization.

The reaction to Professor Katzs declaration was fierce. The chairman of the department of classics, Michael Flower, labeled what Professor Katz had written about the League abhorrent. Princetons president joined the discussion, decrying Katzs use of the term terrorist as false, irresponsible, and offensive.

The department of classics seemed intent on killing the messengerwhich always ended badly in the ancient worldrather than engaging their longtime colleague in discussion. Professor Dan-el Padilla Peralta, who had once been Katzs student and acknowledges his help in his 2015 memoir, Undocumented, spoke of his fury at the op-ed and did not hesitate to state that Katzs flagrant racism makes our case for us. Another classics professor, Brooke Holmes, accused Katz of racialized vilification and rejected the argument of one of Katzs former students that he should have the benefit of the doubt.

Some 90 students signed a letter denouncing Professor Katz and noted the unique complicity of classics in white supremacy and Eurocentrism. (Ironically, in reality, Katzs scholarship on Native American languages, as well as Sanskrit, Tocharian, and Egyptian hieroglyphics, should make him rather unsusceptible to the charge of Eurocentrism.) Professor Flower observed, I myself have never heard him make a racist remark . . . When I read the article, I just, what just happened? But instead of dialogue with a colleague, what ensued was near ritualistic denunciation, a canceling that had to happen.

Remarkably, there has been little public discussion of the tactics of the now-defunct Black Justice League, an omission that makes the critique of Professor Katz very difficult to judge. Some students, speaking on pledge of anonymity, reported that Black classmates who opposed the League were called Aunt Jemima and white supremacist. Screen shots from an Instagram live session show an alumnus of the League grilling a recent Princeton graduate of Asian descent, charging him with an alleged racist statement from years earlier. Other participants suggest that the young graduate will soon lose his job, with one questioning why he should ever have been allowed into Princeton. President Eisgruber himself observed that the rhetoric of the Black Justice League (which had once occupied his office for 32 hours) might be seen as provocative or offensive.

Lost, too, in this contretemps is any focus on Princetons legacy of anti-Asian bias: In 2015, the Office of Civil Rights cleared the university of the charge after a long investigation, but ugly behavior toward Asian applicants in the not-too-distant past is documented.

Princeton, to its credit, walked back the threat of investigation of Professor Katz, and President Eisgruber affirmed that Katz exercised protected freedom of speech and will not be censored or sanctioned. The spotlight will be on Princeton to protect his status at the university scrupulously.

The free exchange of ideas is not a state of being that flourishes without careful attention. It is easily lost when passions, including passions for noble causes, run high. But the default response to criticism of any given social justice initiative cannot be a charge of racism with coercive power to end the discussion and punish dissenters. It will not advance social justice, and it will assuredly destroy the dialogue and debate that can move our society forward.

Continue reading here:

Princeton Grapples With Race, Woodrow Wilsons Controversial Past, And A Professors Dissent - Forbes

It is virtually an axiom of intellectual discourse that voices considered too dangerous or disruptive to be allowed on television, radio, and in print tend to maintain a high demand for their material. The goal of removing the opposition entirely from mainstream platforms is to censor discourse and to close off avenues of debate or inquiry.

Another effect is that discourse will be siloed, relegated to echo chambers, and neither side of the division line will hear the views of the other. The progressive left has entirely forgotten that free speech is essential and foundational to any healthy democracy.

Gavin McInnes Censored TV and the emergence of the social media alternative, Parler, are two platforms created as a way to combat YouTube and Twitter. Their aim is to give a platform for voices that have been forced out of the mainstream for what the progressive left would consider to be insensitive, extreme, or just plain dangerous.

The YouTube star Felix Kjellberg (PewDiePie) has had to fend off controversy after controversy for making insensitive remarks on his channel in the past. Insider reported in late May that "Kjellberg raised eyebrows with his unfiltered commentary and trolling in videos. He went on to make rape jokes for which he later apologized on Tumblr, to joke about joining ISIS (a stunt that got him briefly removed from Twitter), to call female gamers 'stupid Twitch thots,' to use racial slurs, and to post several videos featuring anti-semitic rhetoric and Nazi imagery."

No reasonable person could honestly conclude, based on his videos, that Kjellberg planned to join ISIS or that he really believed that rape was a hilarious event. The term for this kind of behavior by Kjellberg is transgressive, which is a method of veering from the norm in an effort to challenge and perhaps violate ones moral or ethical dispositions. In this way, Kjellberg is a genius. The outrage that has followed his over-the-top jokes fulfills the transgressive sentiment.

Those who have scoured Kjellbergs videos to find any and every instance of offense want to be offended. They are not fans, but opponents of dissent and discourse.

Kjellberg has a staggering 105 million YouTube subscribers. It turns out that many of his followers enjoyor at the very least dont mindKjellbergs potentially offensive humor. Kjellberg, however, apologized for the videos in question, which, in many ways, invalidates the legitimacy of transgressive humor and behavior. He did what so many others have done recently: bow and beg for mercy at the feet of the mob.

A different situation happened with Milo Yiannopoulous who has since migrated to Censored TV. He lost a book deal in 2017 and was effectively vanquished from the mainstream media because he made comments about his personal sexual relationship with an adult when he was still legally a minor. It is irrelevant whether what someone says is distasteful or tone deafsomeones freedom to say what they wish is within their First Amendment rights. Despite him merely using words to express an idea, his words were taken to be literal acts of violence.

The idea that words can be literal acts of violence is a nifty strategy developed by progressivesand has been spearheaded by its most loyal adherents within colleges and universities across the country, where young people are encouraged to be intolerant of opposing views.

Either progressive ideologues do not realize the double standard they have erected when it comes to free speech, or they just do not care. In almost every institution of higher learning in 21st America, progressive professors establish, uphold, and preach whole theories of criticism based around a number of French intellectuals. These are the same intellectuals who in 1977 signed a petition which asked for the decriminalization of all age of consent laws. This would have legalized the very relationship Yiannopolous came under fire for.

The names included on that list were some of the most notable French names of 20th century European discourse: Louis Aragon, Michel Foucault, Bernard Besret, Francis Ponge, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Ranciere, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Philippe Sollers, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Michel Leiris.

The bread and butter of postmodernist thoughta mid-to-late 20th century ideology taught in every gender studies, queer studies, and critical race theory class in Americawas at least partially pioneered by the likes of Foucault, Althusser, Derrida, and Deleuze. The same group of people who refuse to hear what Yiannopoulos has to say are the very same people who admire and endorse the ideas put forth by these French libertines.

This is an indicator that it is not so much what is being said that progressives take issue with, but who is saying it. This is made clear not only by the example above, but with the recent debacle involving American comedian Nick Cannon.

CBS News recently reported that Cannon spoke on a podcast about how "Jews have stolen Black peoples identity as true Hebrews. Cannon also imply[ed] that those with light skin are inferior." The news outlet continued by saying that "Cannon referred to teachings from Louis Farrakhan, who is considered anti-Semitic by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a conspiracy theory about the Rothschild family deemed anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League."

The BBC reported would not fire Cannon from his host post on The Masked Singer, US. Mike Cernovich said "Nick Cannon brought up a belief millions of black Americans have. These views might offend you or outrage you or whatever, but censoring people isnt the answer. Open debate and discussion are."

It is true that Cannon should not be canceled, but it begs the question of why Cannon was let off the hook while so many others have not been so fortunate.

NBA announcer Grant Napear, who reportedly lost his job for saying "All Lives Matter." All Lives Matter "is seen by many as mocking the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 as a campaign against systemic racism and violence toward black people." Napear basically lost his job for something significantly less harmful than Cannons words, but again, it depends on who is relaying a given message and not what the message actually is.

UCLA professor Gordon Klein was removed from his post after students criticized him for not postponing an exam amid the protests and riots that broke out in response to the death of George Floyd. Professors have authority over exam policies, yet Klein was demonized as being racially insensitive for not bending to the whims of his students.

The Federalist reported on Stan Wischnowski, the top editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, who was "forced to resign over a headline of an architecture column that read, 'Buildings Matter, Too,' which ran after scores of buildings in downtown Philly had been destroyed by rioters."

Parler has acted as a sort of bastion for free speech, drawing the likes of McInnes, Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomerall of whom have been permanently banned from Twitter and other platforms for their remarks. The recent additions to Parler's platform have been Katie Hopkins, Carpe Donktum, and Graham Linehan, who have all been booted from Twitter for saying the wrong thing. Parler gained half a million new users after Twitter decided to go after conservative voices, and it has been gaining traction ever since.

Free speech does not mean all speech much adhere to a given set of moral of ethical principlesthat is what makes free speech, well, free. Our First Amendment protects people who say wrong things, offensive things, absurd things, and hurtful things. While there is no doubt that our right to freedom of speech is alive and well, it is unclear who gets to use it with impunity and who will be canceled or mobbed as a result.

Visit link:

Pushing edgy people to the fringes of the internet silences free speech and silos discourse - The Post Millennial

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem the soul of America. John Lewis made this statement on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 1, 2020 commemorating the tragic events of Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday occurred on March 7, 1965 as peaceful protesters were beaten by law enforcement officers for crossing the bridge. Lewis and others like Amelia Boynton Robinson were beaten so badly they were hospitalized.

The context behind the march is significant. The 600-person civil rights march was actually about police brutality. Jimmie Lee Jackson, a 26-year-old church deacon, was killed by James Bonard Fowler, a state trooper in Alabama. This march also occurred a year and a half after the infamous March on Washington highlighting that little had changed in the lives of Black people in America. Bloody Sunday was highlighted in Ava Duvernays Oscar-nominated best picture film Selma. Musicians John Legend and Common won an Oscar for the song Glory.

Bloody Sunday is often noted as a pinnacle of Lewis life. This defining moment encapsulates five things he taught us about getting in good trouble.

Vote, always

Your vote matters. If it didnt, why would some people keep trying to take it away? #goodtrouble Lewis sent this tweet on July 3, 2018. It highlights his lifes workequitable voting. One major part of the Civil Rights Movement was Black people gaining the right to vote. This finally occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the Shelby v Holder Supreme Court decision in 2013 essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act and paved the way for widespread voter suppression and gerrymandering.

This is why it is imperative for Congress to act swiftly to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure equitable access to the polls. Lewis was an original Freedom Rider, participated in many sit-ins, and was arrested dozens of times for people to have the right to vote. Some of us gave a little blood for the right to participate in the democratic process, said Lewis. Now, Congress must honor Lewis legacy and ensure an equitable participation in the democratic process.As Lewis noted, The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy.

Never too young to make a difference

As a founder and leader of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Lewis was the youngest person to speak at the March on Washington. Elder civil rights leaders aimed to taper his words. Lewis was critical of the Kennedy administration and the slowness by which broad scale legislation change was occurring at the federal level. Lewis also critiqued civil rights legislation for not addressing police brutality against Black people. Imagine how this moment in the Movement for Black Lives may be different had elder Civil Rights leaders listened to Lewis. Lewis youth gave him a vision for a more transformative society that was mostly socialized out and, in some cases beaten out, of older leaders. Lewis teaches us that age is nothing but a number and young people have to be the change they want to see by pushing and forcing older people for equitable change. Older people are often socialized in the current arrangement of society and cannot fully envision a radically different world. Lewis stated, I want to see young people in America feel the spirit of the 1960s and find a way to get in the way. To find a way to get in trouble. Good trouble, necessary trouble. Young people can and should push for transformative change and hold us accountable to it.

Speak truth to power

Speak up, speak out, get in the way, said Lewis. He taught us the importance of speaking up and speaking out. We have to be willing to speak up about injustice, always, no matter the costs. My grandfather who served in two wars earning a Purple Heart and Bronze Star taught me from birth that my silence is my acceptance. Lewis stated, When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something. This motto should apply in all aspects of our lives. Lewis epitomizes it and encourages us to not be silent. He was adamant about supporting free speech, but he was also adamant about condemning hate speech.I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that we have an obligation to condemn speech that is racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, or hateful.

Become a racial equity broker

Lewis is the personification of transitioning from a political activist to a politician. I frame it as transitioning from a racial equity advocate to a racial equity broker. A racial equity advocate speaks up and speaks out, stands in the gap, and sits at the table to advocate for people who cannot advocate for themselves. There is a saying If you are not at the table, you are on the menu and someone is eating you for lunch. Shirley Chisholm said, If they dont give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair. Lewis realized that to make transformative change, he had to be at the table and often bring his own chair. Once at the table, he realized that he needed to help draft the documents that got discussed at the table. This led him to becoming an elected official and a racial equity broker to alter, deconstruct, and restructure the laws, policies, procedures, and rules that inhibit racial equity.

Never give up

When Lewis was elected to Congress in 1986, one of his first bills was the creation of a national museum to chronicle the history, culture, and successes of Black Americans. The culmination of this bill was passed in 2003 and opened in 2016 as the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Lewis taught us persistence. He taught us that when a person has transformative ideas, they should not taper those ideas. Instead, they should push those ideas until others get on board. Simply because change is slow does not mean change agents have to move slowly towards it. Lewis was a lightning bolt for equity, social change, and social justice. We must continue his legacy, never forget history, pursue equity, and get in good trouble.

Original post:

Five things John Lewis taught us about getting in good trouble - Brookings Institution

When Michael D. Cohen, President Trumps one-time lawyer and fixer, met with probation officers this month to complete paperwork that would have let him serve the balance of his prison term at home, he found a catch.

Mr. Cohen was already out on furlough because of the coronavirus. But to remain at home, he was asked to sign a document that would have barred him from publishing a book during the rest of his sentence. Mr. Cohen balked because he was, in fact, writing a book a tell-all memoir about his former boss, the president.

The officers sent him back to prison.

On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that the decision to return Mr. Cohen to custody amounted to retaliation by the government and ordered him to be released again into home confinement. Mr. Cohen is expected back in his Manhattan apartment on Friday.

I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory, the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said in court. And its retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.

Judge Hellersteins decision was a remarkable rebuke of prison and probation officials and, by extension, the Trump administration. It raised concerns that the authorities had used the penal system to squelch the free speech rights of one of Mr. Trumps enemies in an effort to protect the president.

Justin Long, a spokesman for the Bureau of Prisons, said that it was not uncommon for prison officials to restrict inmates contact with the media. But he said that Mr. Cohens refusal to agree to the media ban played no role whatsoever in the decision to remand him to secure custody, nor did his intent to publish a book.

Any assertion that the decision to remand Michael Cohen to prison was a retaliatory action is patently false, Mr. Long said.

The question of Mr. Cohens release came before Judge Hellerstein after Mr. Cohen sued U.S. officials on Monday night, claiming that the Trump administration had sent him back to custody to prevent him from completing the book, violating his freedom of speech.

In court papers, Mr. Cohen said the book would paint Mr. Trump as a racist and offer revealing details about the presidents behavior behind closed doors.

Mr. Cohen also pointed out that Mr. Trump and his supporters had sought to derail the publication of books written by John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, and Mr. Trumps niece, Mary L. Trump, whose best-selling memoir laid bare a history of dysfunction in her family.

E. Danya Perry, one of Mr. Cohens lawyers, called the judges order a victory for the First Amendment.

The court hearing on Thursday was the latest chapter in a long-running saga. Mr. Cohen, a legal bulldog who once bragged he would take a bullet for Mr. Trump, pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and other crimes and was sentenced to three years in prison.

As he entered his plea, Mr. Cohen pointed the finger at the president, telling the court that Mr. Trump had directed him during the 2016 election to arrange hush money payments to two women who claimed they had had affairs with Mr. Trump. The president has denied those allegations.

The provision that Mr. Cohen, 53, objected to would have barred him from engagement of any kind with the media, including print, TV, film, books. It also sought to keep him from posting on social media, according to a copy of the agreement attached to his lawsuit.

Judge Hellerstein, who was appointed to the bench in 1998 by President Clinton, said these measures seemed to him to be highly unusual and appeared to be directly related to Mr. Cohens forthcoming book.

In 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people and looking at the terms and conditions of supervised release, he said, I have never seen such a clause.

Both in court papers and during a hearing on Thursday, the government insisted that the probation officer in Mr. Cohens case, Adam Pakula, did not know about the book when he drafted the provisions. The government has denied the document was a gag order or that it was custom-made for Mr. Cohen by high levels of the executive branch.

Mr. Pakula, in court papers, said he drafted the agreement without input from the B.O.P. or anyone in the executive branch.

In court, Judge Hellerstein seemed skeptical.

Why would Pakula ask for something like this unless there was a purpose to it, unless there was a retaliatory purpose saying, You toe the line about giving up your First Amendment rights or we will send you to jail, the judge asked.

Judge Hellerstein also suggested that Mr. Pakula may have gotten some instruction about including the media ban in the agreement.

The government said in court papers earlier this week that the decision to send Mr. Cohen back to prison had nothing to do with his book, but had been made after he became combative while discussing the agreement, behavior the officers found unacceptable.

Judge Hellerstein said that such behavior seemed to him to be an attorneys effort to negotiate an agreement, which is very common.

In May, Mr. Cohen had been allowed to leave a minimum-security prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., and go home as part of an effort by the Bureau of Prisons to curb the spread of coronavirus in the federal prison system.

Mr. Cohens lawyers had argued that his health conditions, including severe hypertension and a history of respiratory problems, put him at risk if he remained in prison.

But on July 9, prison officials abruptly returned Mr. Cohen to Otisville.

In his suit, Mr. Cohen claimed that he never hid the fact that he was writing a book about Mr. Trump. He noted that he spent his mornings working on the manuscript in plain sight in the prisons law library, and said he also discussed the project openly with prison officials, staff members and even other inmates.

According to the suit, the book will give a glimpse into Mr. Cohens firsthand experiences with Mr. Trump and offer graphic details about the presidents behavior behind closed doors.

The narrative, the lawsuit says, describes pointedly certain anti-Semitic remarks against prominent Jewish people and virulently racist remarks against such Black leaders as President Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela.

The manuscript tentatively titled Disloyal: The True Story of Michael Cohen, Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump is only the latest book to have emerged in recent weeks containing detailed and critical revelations about the presidents personal and professional life.

Mr. Cohens suit contends that Mr. Trump and his supporters have sought to derail the publication of his book like the others.

In June, the Justice Department asked a judge to delay the release of The Room Where It Happened, a memoir by Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser who, among other things, confirmed accusations at the heart of the Democratic impeachment case over the presidents dealings with Ukraine. The judge ultimately denied the request.

On the same day that Mr. Boltons book was published, Mr. Trumps younger brother, Robert S. Trump, filed a suit seeking to stop the publication of a family tell-all written by their niece, Mary Trump.

After a few weeks of whirlwind litigation, the judge in that case sided with Ms. Trump, allowing her to publish her memoir, which accused Mr. Trump of embracing cheating as a way of life and of paying someone to take his college entrance exams.

Read more here:

Judge Orders Cohen Released, Citing Retaliation Over Tell-All Book - The New York Times

It's easy to reflexively cancel the opinions of people we disagree with. Here's why we shouldn't.

Last week I shared a post in my weekly newsletter about freedom of speech. The central point I made was that freedom of speech protects people from being legally prosecuted or sanctioned for their words. It does not, however, mean that a person can say whatever they want, without any consequences.

For example: if the CEO of a business states an opinion that is controversial or offensive to some, people are well within their right to refuse to buy from that business, or work at that company. But should they start shaming others to make that same decision?

When I published the post, I received several replies that pointed to the same question: just because people are allowed to ignore, silence or even attempt to antagonize people who disagree with them, does that mean they should? And what kind of culture does that behavior create?

Each of us has core valuesnon-negotiable principles that consciously or unconsciously guide our most important decisions. When somebody shares an opinion that sharply violates our core valueswhether its a political opinion, a lifestyle attitude, or otherwiseit can be natural to be upset, or even angry. We may even feel compelled to defensively turn to people who share our anger to vent as a group.

This type of reaction can be harmless. However, social media has exacerbated things by frequently showing us content that either confirms our beliefs, or is designed to anger us. Cordial debate is decidedly not part of the algorithm.

In this setting, difference of opinionand, to an extent, aspects of free speechare being weaponized to extremes. Youve probably seen somebody attack people they disagree with on social media or, elsewhere, cut off friendships and professional partnerships over political differences. In extreme cases, they might even threaten the person or attempt to get the person punished personally or professionally for their opinions and beliefs.

As a legal protection, freedom of speech doesnt stop this type of uncivil discourse. Whats missing from our marketplace of ideas todayespecially our online forumsare basic rules of engagement. Next time you encounter an opinion you fiercely disagree withespecially at workconsider these three strategies.

Invite dissent

While some truths are universal, we need to accept most issues dont have an objectively correct opinion. In order to grow, we need to be open to dissenting viewpoints, even if they make us uncomfortable.

We also need to acknowledge that while some of our opinions are guided by our non-negotiable principles, all of us have beliefs that we could be persuaded to change, assuming we are open to having our views challenged. Remember that, at one point, the prevailing worldview was that the Earth was flat.

Its important to surround yourself with people who will challenge you, rather than reflexively validate your opinions and actions. This is especially true in businessa CEO who is always certain they are correct, and hates having their beliefs challenged, will inevitably damage their organization by either stubbornly following the wrong course, or alienating talented people who refuse to be cheerleaders.

Next time you encounter a viewpoint you disagree witheven on a topic youre passionate aboutdo yourself a favor and at least listen and try to learn or understand. You may have your perspective changed for the better.

Embrace dissonance

In 1985, United States President Ronald Reagan made a controversial decision to lay a wreath at a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where former soldiers whod fought for Nazi Germany during World War II were buried. This action upset his friend and ally, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who was very critical of Regans action.

However, Peres did not make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and instead offered this offered sage wisdom: When a friend makes a mistake, he remains a friend, but the mistake remains a mistake.

Its not a great idea to associate closely with people who consistently violate or dont align with your core values. However, many of us have found ourselves in a situation where a person we like and respecta friend, co-worker, family member or colleaguesays or does something we disagree with. When this occurs, we encounter powerful force called cognitive dissonance, or the discomfort associated with holding two contradictory beliefs or behaviors in our minds at once.

In short, when someone close to us says something we consider wrong, we struggle to reconcile our feelings about them as a person with our disagreement with their belief. Today, too many people handle this dissonance by simply cutting the person out of their lives completely.

Instead, consider the value of Peres approach and challenge yourself to hold space for duality. Genuinely try to maintain your relationship with the other person, while acknowledging that you disagree, or wont always approve of that persons actions. This practice may salvage vital personal and professional connections. Its also an essential practice in the workplace.

Dont waste your energy

While many online disagreements simply fade, in some cases these conflicts can spill over into the offline world, with damaging results. Today, we see people respond to opinions they find offensive by harassing others online, contacting their employers, or even publishing their personal information online, a practice known as doxing. This behavior is dangerous and may have grave consequences. It can also threaten free speech.

If a person is sharing hate speech online or inciting violence with their words, its understandable to want to silence or shame them. But in cases the disagreement is simply over politics, or religion, or lifestyle practices that ultimately dont directly cause harm, its damaging for everybody involved to harass or attack others online. Its also inexcusable to threaten physical harm or encourage others to do the same.

People who share inflammatory opinions online are often seeking attention or engagement. Consider these types of posts to be landmines; they can either lay dormant, or explode on impact. Rather than taking the bait, its often more productive to attempt to bridge the divide, understand the persons point of view, and respectfully attempt to persuade them. Getting into fights online almost never leads to any improvement and certainly doesnt add value to your own life.

Instead of spending time with loved ones, or taking a nice walk outdoors, you are using your energy and limited hours in a day for what is almost always a zero-sum game. Not only can attacking others online cause lasting harm, it is a genuine waste of time and energy. Focusing on a solution is far more productive.

We ultimately dictate the terms of the marketplace of ideas we operate in, and its up to us to set rules of engagement that lead to a better conversation. Next time you see or hear something that conflicts with your views, it may be helpful to consider these tacticsdoing so may create a better outcome for all.

Robert is the founder and CEO ofAcceleration Partners. Join 200,000+ global leaders who follow his inspirational weekly newsletterFriday Forwardorinvite him to speak. Robert is also a Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling author. His new book,Friday Forward: Inspiration and Motivation to End Your Week Stronger Than It Started,releases September 1, 2020.

Read more here:

Cancelling The Opinions Of Those You Dont Agree With Is A Slippery SlopeHeres A Better Option - Forbes

Freedom of belief and thought is of paramount importance in a liberal democracy. Ideologies provide meaning and belonging and are often described as vital for wellbeing however they can also be extreme. A key counter to extremism is the freedom to challenge all forms of thinking and to put alternative ideas. This allows us to exchange ideas freely. It allows revolutionary ideas to emerge and gain popularity and allows bad ideas to be scrutinised in debate. As the LGBT activist and dogged defender of freedom of speech Peter Tatchell puts it:

Free speech does not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative to challenge, oppose and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by good ideas backed up by ethics, reason rather than by bans and censorship.

But when groupthink creeps into society, freedom of speech and a willingness to debate ideas can be social, or career suicide. You run the risk of being cancelled.

Take JK Rowlings cancelling as a recent example. JK Rowling tweeted a question in response to an online article, which was headlined, Creating a more equal post Covid-19 world for people who menstruate. Why, she asked, did the article chose to use the phrase people who menstruate instead of women? For this she came under aggressive attack and threats of boycott. The transgender model and activist Munroe Bergdorf slammed Rowling as dangerous and a threat to LGBT people.

In response Rowling pleaded with those trying to silence her: All Im asking all I want is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

JK Rowling is far from the only victim of cancel culture, we relentlessly witness the far left aggressively shouting down ideas with which they disagree. This reflects an increased tendency for the progressive left to attack freedom of speech. But she shows that even the most successful and respected people can become victims of the societal attack on freedom of speech. This attack goes beyond cancel culture.

Last year the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims proposed a definition of Islamophobia saying that it is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.The definition was deeply problematic, as it failed to distinguish between moderate and extreme forms of religious expression. Religious ideology must never be above critique, whilst negative behaviour towards someone for believing a particular religion must not be tolerated the difference between the two is of crucial importance.

As Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, put it,Those who raise concerns about religious privileges which undermine womens rights, animal welfare, LGBT rights and the principle of one law for all are routinely shouted down as Islamophobes and marginalised from public conversation.

The adoption of the APPGs vague definition, which protects ill-defined expressions of Muslimness, would hasten this process, while undermining efforts to tackle bigotry against Muslims.

Despite this criticism, local authorities and political parties have adopted the definition. People who have argued against it have been branded islamophobic. These include the former UK equality watchdog chief and staunch defender of both minorities and freedom of speech, Trevor Phillips.

Ironically it is the institutions synonymous with debate and learning that have been hardest hit by the attack on freedom of speech. No-platforming at universities has seen right wing Tommy Robinson no-platformed twice. His opinions may be racist and offensive, but he is not a danger to the audience and it is better for people like him to be heard and debated, rather than marginalised. But ban him and it only reinforces his image as the put-up outsider. Less controversial characters like Maryam Namazie and feminist Germaine Greer were also no-platformed. Their crime was to hold opinions on gender and sex that run counter to far left groupthink.Tatchell has called the current no-platforming policy of the NUS a dangerous threat to free speech.

The erosion of free speech recently went a step further. Earlier in the summer, in the space of 24 hours, 14.6 million instagram users shared a blacked-out image with the hashtag #blackouttuessday but unease crept in with the worry that if you did not continue to participate you were complicit in the problem. Social media filled with a strict to do list on how to understand, speak about and take action over white privilege. Rather than looking for ways to bring about racial equality, the movement focused on dictating to white people how they must behave lest they be branded a racist. A shift had occurred. The attack on freedom of speech had changed to become an insistence on positive action to conform to the groups thinking.

In the last of a series of events surrounding the struggling survival of our right to freedom of speech a public letter was published onHarpers Magazine. Signed by 150 people, it recognised that the needed reckoning of racial and social justice had also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favour of ideological conformity. Signaturies ranged fromJK Rowling and Noam Chomsky.

Ironically however, within days the signatories turned on each other and threatened to remove their signature because they did not agree with the other signatories.

Sadly it has come to a point where each of us must check ourselves if we want to continue to live in a free and safe liberal democracy and ensure we are not working against freedom of speech. Its time to remind ourselves of the words Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire I disapprove of what you say,but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Read more:

You are not allowed to speak - TheArticle

Last week Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard used Twitter to call for the resignation of Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater over what he saw as Praters heavy-handed treatment of social justice demonstrators.

Some of Hubbards followers went berserk. One with an OSU logo as his Twitter avatar requested that coach Mike Gundy stop recruiting commies who hate our country before calling for Hubbards deportation, presumably back to his Sherwood Park, Alberta, home.

Hubbard responded by tweeting a message clarifying: Everything Ive done in my life has been aimed towards making this world a better place; lamenting: Many people havent taken the time to see my side; admitting I have also made many mistakes like everyone else on this Earth; and declaring he was stepping away from his social media because it has become a playground for hate.

The majority of Hubbards followers responded reasonably if not supportively.

A sampling from the less tolerant went: I liked it better when you had Twitter deactivated! Your scholarship should be deactivated! And I hope he is kicked off the team. And Enough we will not be lectured by Canadians! Go home! And I thought I had heard the last of you Chuba. I was seriously trying to forget about your stupid antics (of) self preservation.

This isnt to debate the politics in play here. People are going to be for and against political figures like Prater and political issues so involved. Thats understandable.

This isnt to debate Hubbards right to come down on one side of this issue. Thats indisputable, provided we still live in a democracy that allows athletes to form real-world opinions same as electricians, physicians, plumbers or teachers.

This isnt to ignore the backing Hubbard did receive last week. There was a lot of We got your back from OSU fans who encouraged the young man to continue exercising his freedom of speech.

Nor is this to dismiss those who disagreed with Hubbard. Their rights to free speech are the same as his, provided all practice the First Amendment within respectable, decent bounds.

The issue here is indecency. The issue is those who responded to Hubbard hatefully.

And if you are thinking about the old bad apples in every bunch line, surely you see that those apples are rotting worse with every issue that arises anymore, with every attempt at civil disagreement, and that the stink is getting all over that democracy of ours.

Last week it got all over Hubbard and it drove him from social media at a time college athletes everywhere are, for the first time, truly discovering their voices.

Hubbard tweeted about the Black Lives Matter movement in the days leading up to his Twitter departure, and about a program dedicated to education opportunities for high school and college students of color.

On July 13, Hubbard tweeted about faith and hope for everyone that is going through a hard time.

You dont have to agree with someones political or social views to appreciate when that person gives a damn about the world, as Hubbard clearly does. It is inspiring to see that in anyone, let alone someone so young and so perceptive as to understand that his platform amplifies his voice.

It is nauseating to realize that voice has been silenced by those who either cant or wont bring themselves to tolerate it. Who are so consumed by their own political and social agendas that they smear vitriol over a representative of the other side, and then do it again when that representative simply tries to explain himself.

A month ago, I had a meaningful conversation with University of Tulsa offensive lineman Chris Paul. We chatted about his investment in world views he is the American Athletic Conferences representative on the NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and about his hope that fans who supported college football players on fall Saturdays might take the time to support them away from games, as well.

That holistic view is very important, Paul said. It allows you to understand the individual youre cheering for.

Thats all were after here. Understanding. If you agree with the player on issues beyond the game, fine. Thats your choice. Just be understanding. Be humane.

Again, the majority of those who disagreed with Hubbards stance toward Prater, and might continue to disagree with Hubbards stance toward Gundys One America News Network fondness or any other topics related to what the country is going through currently, are being humane. They are being decent.

The indecency, however minor, is startling. Some of what Hubbard endured last week was shuddering.

And now as we wonder when Hubbard might reappear from under the garbage, Im thinking about something his head coach once famously asked.

Where are we at in society today?

Bixby 5-10175Sr.

In his first two years as a starter, has led the Spartans to a 25-1 record and two 6AII state titles. Last year, completed 75% of his passes as he threw for 3,491 yards and 47 touchdowns. Passed for 435 yards and eight TDs against Mansfield Timberview. Connected with Braylin Presley on the winning TD pass with 1:04 left against Stillwater in the state final. Career passing totals: 446-of-625, 6,716 yards, 83 TDs, 13 interceptions.

Click here to vote for Mason

Pawhuska 6-3220Sr.

In 2019, completed 198-of-309 passes for 3,426 yards and 36 TDs. Had 150 rushes for 870 yards and 25 touchdowns. Also caught eight passes and had a TD. Passed for 328 yards and five TDs against Barnsdall. Threw for 351 yards and accounted for four TDs as he rallied the Huskies from a 26-0 halftime deficit for a 34-26 playoff win at Stroud. Career passing totals: 334-of-537, 5,440 yards, 57 TDs, 23 interceptions.

Click here to vote for Bryce

Jenks 5-10175Sr.

In his first season as a starter, completed 171-of-255 passes for 2,646 yards and 24 TDs to lead the Trojans to the 6AI state final. Passed for 271 yards and five TDs in a quarterfinal win at Mustang. Completed 18-of-20 passes for 259 yards and two TDs against Westmoore in a Week 10 victory that clinched a playoff berth.

Click here to vote for Stephen

B.T. Washington 6-0170Jr.

Versatile athlete with 12 major offers. In 2019, injuries limited his time at QB as he completed 58-of-111 passes for 861 yards and nine TDs five against Shawnee and four against Bishop Kelley. Also rushed for 467 yards and three TDs. In 2018, passed for 784 yards and 10 TDs as he won his first six starts. Has two career catches of at least 55 yards. In the 2019 6A state track meet, won the 400 (47.70) and was runner-up in the 200.

Click here to vote for Gentry

Union 5-11195Jr.

Showed star potential as he won his first five starts to rally Union from a 1-4 start to reach the 6AI playoffs. In his starting debut, he rushed for three TDs and passed for another in a 31-7 win at Putnam North. Produced 253 yards and two TDs in win over Norman North. In the quarterfinals, Banks accounted for 243 yards and two TDs in a 35-31 loss to Broken Arrow.

Click here to vote for Rovaughn

Central 6-0175Sr.

Last season, led the Braves to their best record, 6-4, since 2011. Completed 116-of-170 passes for 2,016 yards and 29 TDs. Also had 30 rushes for 305 yards and seven TDs. As a safety, had 27 tackles. Passed for 389 yards and five TDs at Stilwell; 328 yards and five TDs against Hilldale, 301 and four TDs at OKC Grant.

Click here to vote for KT

Coweta 6-3190Jr.

In 2019, completed 157-of-232 passes for 2,278 yards and 21 TDs to help the Tigers reach the 5A quarterfinals last year. Also rushed for 342 yards and six TDs and caught three touchdown passes. On defense, picked off two passes. Averaged 40 yards on four punts. Passed for 289 yards and four TDs in a playoff win over Tahlequah. Threw for 330 yards and two TDs against Edison.

Click here to vote for Gage

Holland Hall 6-2180Sr.

Oklahoma baseball commit passed for 2,070 yards and 23 TDs last season as he led the Dutch to a 9-3 record. Also rushed for 366 yards and four TDs. As a free safety, had 44 tackles and three takeaways. Started 11 games at QB as a freshman in 2017, filling in for injured Drake Roush. Clark completed 116-of-173 passes for 1,951 yards and 20 TDs to help the Dutch reach the 2A quarterfinals.

Click here to vote for Wallace

Inola 5-10170Sr.

In 2019, completed 187-of-315 passes for 2,418 yards and 29 TDs. Also rushed for 307 yards and five touchdowns. Completed 30-of-41 passes as he accounted for 434 yards and six TDs against Locust Grove. Passed for 315 yards and six TDs against Wyandotte. Career passing totals: 325-of-545, 4,083 yards, 43 TDs, 23 interceptions.

Click here to vote for Landen

Broken Arrow 5-11170Sr.

In his debut as a starter, completed 79-of-126 passes for 1,540 yards and 19 TDs with only two interceptions last season. Connected on 7-of-10 passes for 217 yards and two TDs in a playoff win against Union. Passed for three TDs on eight passes in a 43-42 win over Yukon. Completed 9-of-10 passes for 162 yards and three TDs in a win over Mansfield.

Click here to vote for Jake

The 2020 All-World Preseason Football Contest presented by Bill Knight Automotive is underway, giving readers the chance throughout the summer

LBs:All World football: For Owasso's Emaud Triplett, Army and medical school are in his future, but first another 6AI title run

All World defensive backs: Recruiters didn't miss B.T. Washington standout Keuan Parker

Click here to vote on the best running back

See the original post here:

Guerin Emig: Lord help us overcome the hate that overran Chuba Hubbard - Tulsa World

Jon Ort / The Daily Princetonian

Four hundred and twenty-four members of the University community took out a full-page ad in the Tuesday edition of the Washington Post in support of journalist Maria Ressa 86, who was found guilty of cyber libel in the Philippines over a month ago.

The letter comes a day before a scheduled court appearance for Ressa in the Philippines.

Signed by a number of journalists, multiple former public servants, and two sitting members of Congress, the letter urges the U.S. government to use its influence to convince the Philippine government to drop all charges against Ressa, her colleague Reynaldo Santos Jr., and the online news network Rappler.

Ressa, Rapplers CEO and co-founder, was named a Time Magazine Person of the Year in 2018, and she delivered the baccalaureate address at the 2020 virtual University Commencement ceremony.

On June 15, she was convicted of cyber libel by a Regional Trial Court in Manila, following a May 2012 article published by her news organization alleging ties between a corrupt judge and a wealthy Filipino-Chinese businessman. She was charged alongside Santos the author of the article in question and faces both an $8,000 fine and up to six years in prison.

The decision was met with staunch criticism by journalists around the world and has been widely deemed an assault on press freedom and free speech. Ressas organization has extensively covered Filipino President Rodrigo Dutertes drug war, drawing the ire of his authoritarian regime, which has charged both her and Rappler over half a dozen times with fraud and tax evasion.

Presidents throughout the history of [the United States] have used their leverage against authoritarian governments that violate the rights of U.S. citizens abroad; the current administration should do the same, the signatories added. To do otherwise would only diminish Americas role as a leader of the democratic world.

The letter also urged congressional appropriators to reexamine the hundreds of millions of dollars the Philippines receives each year in U.S. military aid, adding, Why should U.S. taxpayers underwrite a government that is so egregiously violating our values?

Spanning nine decades of University graduates, the letters signatories include Representatives Terri Sewell 86 (D-Ala.) and Derek Kilmer 96 (D-Wash.); former senior White House and State Department officials Mike McCurry 76, John Bellinger 82, and Anne-Marie Slaughter 80; Editor-in-Chief of ProPublica Stephen Engelberg 79, and Founding Director of the Broad Institute Eric Lander 78.

Several individuals associated with The Daily Princetonian also signed the letter, including Editor-in-Chief Jon Ort 21, Managing Editor Ben Ball 21, President of the Prince Board of Trustees Tom Weber 89, and Trustee Emerita Kathy Kiely 77.

As of Monday afternoon, five additional individuals signed on after the letter went to press, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ben Taub 14 and humorist Jason O. Gilbert 09, both of The New Yorker. Other community members interested in signing can find the statement and a Princetonians for Maria Ressa Google Form online.

Citing the absurd number and phoniness of charges against Ressa, the letter also described attacks on the press throughout history by authoritarian regimes as a calculated strategy to avoid accountability and undermine democracy.

Our Princeton education instilled in us an understanding that a government is only accountable to its people when journalists are free to report on its activities without retaliation, it continued. That is why we denounce these politically motivated charges against Ressa and her colleagues.

The letter lauded Ressa, a dual American and Philippine citizen, as having fearlessly withstood a four-year-long campaign of online and legal harassment blatantly aimed at intimidating journalists and stifling any criticism of the governments authority.

All of us know that the rights Maria is fighting for are not just the rights of journalists. Freedom of speech is a human right; each of us recognizes we must join Maria in this battle, the letter concluded. Princeton taught us the importance of intellectual freedom and the service of humanity. Maria Ressa is the embodiment of those values. We recommit ourselves to them in standing with her.

The letter was authored by a group of alumni, including Kiely, McCurry, David Abromovitz 78, Anne Tergesen 86, Weber, and Joe Stephens, director of the Program in Journalism and former staff writer for the Washington Post.

In an interview with the Prince, Stephens, the Ferris Professor of Journalism in Residence, wrote, Freedom of the press should know no boundaries. Any attempt to suppress free speech anywhere in the world diminishes all of our knowledge, and diminishes all of humanity.

He added, It is important for Maria and her colleagues, but also for all of us, that Americans and Princetonians stand as one to support the free exchange of ideas everywhere, and buttress anyone who seeks to hold the powerful to the highest standards of accountability."

The letter joins several other statements of solidarity from the Congressional Freedom of the Press Caucus, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the University, the Editorial Board, the Princeton Fillipino Community, and a letter signed in February 2019 by students and alumni.

Read more here:

Over 400 alumni call on the U.S. govt. to assist Maria Ressa '86 - The Daily Princetonian

From left to right: Yascha Mounk, Mike Pesca, and Osita Nwanevu.Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Getty Images Plus, CBS, Slate.

A week ago, 153 public intellectuals signed an open letter to Harpers magazine that decried illiberalismor a censorship of free speech, dissenting opinions, and open debatewithin traditionally liberal discourse. A lot of people disagreed with this letter, and disagreed strongly. Sometimes disagreeing so strongly that a few of the letters signatories said, well, that makes my point. No, that misses the point, argued the objectors, some of whom signed their own letter.

We have seen so much back and forth about this, but one thing that I havent seen or heard is back and forth in the same place between different sides of the debate. Luckily I have a podcast. With that in mind, I wanted to host for a debateor a structured disagreementtwo intelligent and important people representing each side.

On my show the Gist, I invited Yascha Mounk, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins, a contributor to the Atlantic, the founder of Persuasion, a publication and community forlets say, people who felt the Harpers letter spoke to their concerns. He signed the letter. Also joining me was Osita Nwanevu, whos a staff writer at the New Republic, and whose recent article, The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism, is the most frequently cited critique of the Harpers letter. (Mounk and Nwanevu both previously wrote regularly for Slate.)

A portion of the discussion is transcribed below. It has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

Mike Pesca: Yascha, do you think the problem is the size or the symbolism of this phenomenon? Or is it the slope, where it could be going?

Yascha Mounk: I think theres actually a lot of cases. You can go on Twitter and find dozens and dozens of these cases. I dont think its at all a negligible number of cases. And I always get a little bit nervous when we say, well this is just a few cases, lets tolerate those because of the sort of cause behind it. I think we can build a just society without giving up and sacrificing innocent individuals along the way.

But I think most importantly, it is absolutely about the chilling effect. I have an email in my inbox every day from somebody who says, I want to make this very reasonable point, and Im afraid of doing that. Or, Im being punished in various ways for doing that. If you talk to writers at every major newspaper and magazine in this country, they say, if I talk about topic X, I get to write whatever I want. As soon as I want to talk about topic Y, suddenly everybody is so scared that the article never sees the light of day, or its so mutilated that I dont recognize it a being in my own voice at all.

Ive talked to people at all of these institutions and they are telling me, I cannot say honestly, publicly what I believe. And thats something that should make readers incensed.

Osita Nwanevu: I think the actual number, measured in a rigorous way, is important. Because theres a way you can have this discourse where youre saying, lets take this or that case seriously and adjudicate, or try to figure out whether this was justified. And then theres a way you can frame this discourseand I think the way that it has been predominantly framedwhere you say, there is something sweeping American society that we need to all sit up and pay attention to. I think that second claim requires a burden of proof that hasnt really been met.

You can say that there have been dozens of cases where people have been fired for not having the right opinions. Dozens of cases within the scope of American society is nothing. One-tenth of 1 percent of the number of people who are fired in a given yearI think 20 million people lost their jobs in 2016is 20,000 people. If you can find 20,000 cases, one-tenth of 1 percent of people who are being fired in this country because their opinions were not sufficiently progressive, I think that then we could have a real conversation. I think that seems like a good starting point. But if youre relying on viral anecdotes that come to you via Twitter, I think that people have to be a little bit skeptical about the scope and reach of the analysis.

[]

I think we could talk about the merits and demerits of particular cases and their substance, but I think its an active misdirection to say, as many people have, that what were fundamentally talking about is free expression or free speech.

Mounk: The question is, what do we actually want discourse to look like in the United States? And [Osita], you said, oh well, you know some of these people, they just made the mistake of going into spheres of life where theyre now subject to those progressive pressures. So you know, just let them go over to the right. I mean, first of all, I think we shouldnt wish for people who are part of our coalition to go over to the right, because the most important thing in this year of 2020 is that we win an election against Donald Trump and make sure that people with views that we both find abhorrent dont continue to hold actual political power in this country. But its also a very strange view of what the purpose of a university is. And sure, you know, somebody getting fired from a position at a university is not an infringement of the United States Constitution. But it is a very serious abridgment of some norms and some freedoms that we want to defend for good reason.

Nwanevu: Its all well and good to talk broadly about free speech, but I think that people understand that there is something more complicated happening here. And I think theres a very good example of this outside of universities that we can talk about, that emerged last week.

If you were to ask anybody who engages in cancel culture discourse, do you think it is OK for somebody to make controversial remarks in a private forum, to have those remarks discovered by an anonymous tipster who goes to a major news outlet, to have those remarks published by that outlet, and to see that person lose their job for making statements [in the private forum] that most people would disagree with and find objectionable but that millions of people in this country dont actually have a problem with?I think most people would say, yeah, thats a pretty good example of cancel culture. Thats what happened to Blake Neff at Fox News, right? He made remarks in his private life that were racist and objectionable, and he lost his job for it.

Now, the response to people who bring this up has generally been, well look you shouldnt lump this in with other cases, because Blake Neff is a racist. And this is where it gets sticky. Once you say its OK for somebody to lose their job because theyre a racist, the question then becomes, OK what is racism? What is sexism; what is transphobia? It becomes not a question of speech and liberalism in the abstract, with one side supporting liberalism and free discourse and the other side not supporting liberalism and free discourse. Its a question of where the lines are. And people are functionally going to disagree about that.

What we have is people who say, you are overly concerned about sexism, or racism, or transphobia. And therefore, your criticism of me is equivalent to the Cultural Revolution that happened under Mao. Osita Nwanevu

I think that people in liberal society have the freedom to disagree about those decisions, and define their values and affiliations as narrowly and as openly and theyd like.

To Yaschas point about, wouldnt this lead to a society where everybody is on the left or on the right and theres no in betweenIm not prescribing that, and Im not saying that that is an ideal outcome. And I dont really think thats particularly likely. Yascha has just started up a project [Persuasion] where he is going to bring people on who are aligned with his values, and there are people who are not going to be aligned with those values who are not going to be brought on. And thats kind of the nature of discourse. There are these different discursive spheres in American society, in all societies, where people have loose or tight affiliations, and things are messy. But ultimately, I dont know that it makes sense to say that people utilizing freedom in a way that we find unproductiveor in a way that we think is worthy of criticismare then illiberal because we disagree with the way that they have chosen to define their organization. I think thats something that is aimed at shutting down discourse rather than allowing discourse to flourish. I think thats something, again, that is often hypocritically done against specific people with specific ideological priors.

Mounk: Obviously every newspaper has an editorial policy and has a set of ideas about whats within the realm of what can be debated, and a set of ideas of things that they wont allow to be debated. Theres nothing wrong with that. There can nevertheless be two concerns about the way in which that tends to play out at the moment, which I think are worth taking seriously.

The first is that when a writer or a journalist agrees with left-of-center opinion on 19 out of 20 issues, or agrees with progressive opinion on 19 out of 20 issues, but on one out of those 20 issues they have a principled disagreement that falls very far away from being a form of bigotry. They simply want to challenge some assumption within the discourse. If that means that those views are hidden from the audience, then I think thatll make for worse newspapers. Thats a small objection, but an important one if youre thinking about how places like the New York Times or Slate should be run.

The second, bigger problem is that people arent only criticized for that particular point of view. That particular point of view is not only debated, but then theres pressure to say, if they think that, then they should not have employment within these institutions. If they dont recant this view, then they are a bad human being and we should punish them. And that goes quite a lot further in creating an atmosphere of fear in which the people who create the public discourse can never quite say what they believe, because theyre always afraid of falling on the wrong side of a line of which we dont exactly know where it falls.

And you can see, as youve seen a few times in last months and years, a public discourse in progressive spaces jumping from one received wisdom to another within a couple of days. And everybody moves with it, because the first [position] wasnt really able to be challenged at one point, and then something changed in the conflagration and suddenly everybody believes the other thing. I dont think that is healthy for us, ourselves, in these spaces. We should be very concerned about that.

Nwanevu: Well, so I think its worth asking Yascha directly. You know, when it comes to people holding controversial opinions, and the extent to which progressives or maybe journalists, people in the media, are deluding themselves if they think its helpful to get rid of people who represent the views that exist out in the country: I just ask if you think that Blake Neffs firing, or I guess resignation, is an example of cancel culture?

I dont see how, in the abstract, what happened departs that much from the other cases people have brought up, except for the fact that the content of his views mark him out as different in some kind of subjective way.

Mounk: Look, I never said that there arent certain limits that we should draw. My point is that when the limits are drawn so narrowly, and when you have to agree on such a large number of propositions in order to be in good standing, then were stifling debate on our own side in a way that will make us deluded about the truth and incapable of convincing anybody to actually vote for progressive and important causes.

So Im not saying that there arent certain people [with] certain kinds of positionsit depends of what kind of positionwho express deeply bigoted views, who therefore should not be, you know, the chief writer for a huge television show. What Im seeing in our spaces, though, is that people who agree with their friends and their peers and their colleagues on 19 out of 20 issues, and have reasonable disagreements on the 20th issuewhere I might fall on the other side of them, I might disagree with them, but its not in any way a bigoted point of vieware then unpersonned and punished, and yes canceled, for the expression of those views. That has a chilling effect on our ability to talk honestly and energetically and truthfully about the world that I think we should all be worried about.

I think when that chilling effect takes over, we wind up in a society in which we cant actually talk honestly to each other. That is a very bigproblem. Yascha Mounk

And by the way, if you really care about our ability to have those open debates, if you really care about freedom of speech, if you really care about a robust public discourse, then why are you so concerned about some people being overly worried about that? If I really care about sexism, and I think some people are overascribing how much sexism there is in society, I dont think youre a terrible person for exaggerating how much sexism there is. I think, hey you know what, I disagree with you on this. Good news, perhaps theres a little bit less sexism than you think. But I agree with you that there is a lot of sexism, and we should fight against it.

Nwanevu: All right, so I think that is functionally not what actually happens in this discourse. What we have in this discourse is people who say, you are overly concerned about sexism, or youre overly concerned about racism, or youre overly concerned about transphobia. And therefore, your criticism of me is equivalent to the Cultural Revolution that happened under Mao. That is the discourse that we have, right? So I think its important to actually recognize that, and not sort of create in this discussion an alternative universe that does not actually exist. So

Mounk: But I dont know, Osita, why is this an alternative universe? Im one of the most visible people in this discourse. Weve been talking for 40 minutes. Why are you ascribing views to me that are not mine?

Nwanevu: Im not ascribingIn fact, Im saying that because there are people who are not you, Yascha, who are defining this discourse also, we should recognize that and use that to actively, accurately develop a sense of where this discourse actually is.

I do think, and Ive written about this and Ive given chapter and verse of examples of this, of people who criticize progressive identity politics and then say, not just that I disagree with this person, or I dont like that view, but, this persons adoption of this view is going to lead to the gulags. It is equivalent to Stalinism. It is incompatible, as Jonathan Chait said, with liberal democratic society. I think that is wild.

We have, in the Harpers letter, the claim that liberal expression is becoming daily more constrained. I think that is an ahistorical claim that has absolutely nothing to do with the progression of speech in American society. But we have all these kinds of wild generalizations happening. On top of issues that I think are deeply complicated.

You say that there are people whose views are aligned 19 out of 20 with people at major institutions, but they have this one little view that shouldnt be a big deal and shouldnt be considered bigoted, that prevents them from speaking freely or whatever it is. But thats a matter of perspective, right? People are going to disagree, again, about what bigotry is, and what the implications of a particular opinion are going to be. I dont think it makes sense for people to say, well if you disagree with me on that 20th issue, that means that youre an illiberal who opposes open discourse. I think thats silly. I dont think thats a productive way to have a conversation.

Mounk: No, Im not saying that if you disagree with me on that 20th issue youre against liberal discourse. Im saying that if you think that for disagreeing on that 20th issue, you should be fired, or youre making my workspace unsafe

Nwanevu: It depends on what the 20th issue is, right?

Pesca: What Osita just said is what I was going to say. With so much of this, it depends. When Osita laid out the broad contours of the Blake Neff firing, my thought was, well, it depends what those things said in private channels were. I kept thinking about J.K. Rowling, who certainly agrees with most of liberalism on things, and then has this one carve-out for her opinions on trans rights.

Is the pushback on her canceling her? Or is it spirited, vocal, extremely impassioned pushback that she should be able to take?

Mounk: Well, so first of all, when were talking about Neff, its not the 20th out of 20 issues. I mean, he seems to have

No, no. Neff was an example of how it all depends on what the specifics are. When Osita laid out a scenario where a person said certain things in private channels, I was just thinking, it depends what those certain things are. Neff is not [an example of only disagreeing on] the 20th out of 20 views.

Nwanevu: But it illustrates how difficult it is. Thats my point. Its very easy to say, well a racist person shouldnt get to keep their job. People disagree about what racism is. And so you can have this broad, abstract conversation about speech. But functionally, what is actually in question is not speech or liberalism. I think the people who are derided as illiberal, or people who are derided as people who dont care about free speech, do. They just disagree and draw their lines on these particular questions, in these particular cases, in different places than Yascha might, or Jesse Singal might, or any of the other people in this discourse might. And when drawing that line in a different place, the charge against them is not just, well I disagree with you about where that line should be, but that the act of drawing the line signals that you are opposed to the fundamental principles undergirding our society, which I think is ridiculous.

Mounk: But there are

Nwanevu: One other thing I should say, just before you startbecause you made a point about narrowness that I think is critical. This idea that we should be as open as possible to as many perspectives as possible within a particular boundary. One of the guidelines that you seem to imply should govern this boundary is, well if there are people out in the country who we need to understand and reach out to, you cant exclude them from the discourse. You cant ignore those opinions and brush them away.

Forty percent of this country is doggedly supportive of the president of the United States. Im not aware of very many people who either signed that Harpers letter or are involved in Persuasion who would declare themselves outright supporters of Donald Trump. I dont really see this as a discourse that is aimed at elevating those people and saying that those people deserve 40 percent of the op-ed space at the New York Times or a much more substantial percent of the op-ed space at the New York Times.

Theres a range of views in this country today about basic political questions, that is absolutely blacklisted from major institutions. And that absolutely no one is interested in having more adequately represented. And I think that the proof in the pudding is the fact that these free discourse efforts dont seem very interested in including those people or those perspectives at all.

Mounk: So, were now getting into caricature. I mean, the idea that I in any way argued for, you know, if 48, or rather according to my latest information, about 40 percent of the U.S. population support Donald Trumpthankfully its less than 48 at this pointthen we should have 40 percent of column inches in the New York Times be given to Trump supporters or something like that, is a mechanistic view of what opinion should look like, when I dont believe it.

And by the way, one of the problems that we get if we hermetically seal our own progressive spaces off to a lot of the other opinions is where we insufficiently understand that 40, or what used to be 48 percent of a population, to actually know how to manage to persuade many of them to join us in the endeavor of building a more just society. Which is incredibly important if we actually want to remedy some of those injustices.

But I think the fundamental distinction, Osita, between you and me, is whether we are thinking about discourse and critiques of various members of a discourseyou used this term, discourse, I think about 10 times in this conversationor whether were talking about the kind of institutions and rules that we need in order to make a very diverse society work better.

The question, to me, is what would a healthy, robust, left-of-center set of publishing spaces, political spaces, look like where theyre able to debate the world truthfully, understand how we actually remedy injustices in this country, and set us up to persuade many of our fellow citizens to join us in the endeavor of actually doing that? And no matter how much you sort of cite different examples, theres ultimately, I think, a pretty stark difference between a world in which peopleas very many people now feelhave a sense that they have to very closely adhere to orthodoxy on 20 different issues, that when they fail to affirm the orthodoxy, that not only earns them a lot of criticism of that particular point of view, which is perfectly fine, but gets them expelled from those spaces altogether and makes other people tell them that they are bad human beings that shouldnt really be part of the discourse. And I think when that chilling effect takes over, we wind up in a society in which we cant actually talk honestly to each other, and for those of us who have platforms, to our readers and listeners, that is a very big problem.

Now, that doesnt mean that I think people who express extreme bigoted or racist views should be hired by the New York Times. It doesnt mean that within civil society there arent limits to whom I would have over for dinner or to whom I would publish in Persuasion, my new venture. All of those things are taken for granted. But I think anybody who looks at these publications at the moment, and who listens to how many writers and journalists who are most ensconced in those milieus express their fear about deviating from orthodoxy, should grow a little bit concerned about whether were having the most honest, the healthiest debates. And about whether theyre being told the truth in the publications they read and listen to. And you know, no point about Fox News or Neff is going to dispel that concern for me, and I dont think its going to dispel that concern for many other listeners of this podcast.

Nwanevu: I think that what all of that functionally amounts to is thatwhen Yascha or people who are engaged with this project, this idea that progressive identity politics is undermining liberal institutions when [those people] make decisions about who should or shouldnt be allowed in the discourse or published by a newspaper, or given a spot at a university, that you can rely on them to be judicious and keepers of the liberal faith.

[But] when progressives say that the person who disagrees with me on the 20th position is wrong in some morally important way, [its said] those people are being unreasonable. Theres a narcissism of small differences there. And any reasonable person can say that on the basis on that 20th view, progressives should be more than welcome to have that person participate in the discourse on the basis of the other views that they hold, right? Theres people who are allowed and should be trusted to make difficult decisions about what is or isnt right, and what is or isnt worth discussing. And [yet] that class of people does not include people who think, well that 20th issue is actually very, very important, and we should take it seriously. We havent been taking it seriously before.

Again, this isnt about a bad-faith particular set of actors. I think that the ideas themselves are suspect here. Because theres a difference in your willingness to apply them universally. I think its tremendously important for people who say to themselves, well we need to have an open discourse and to have all kinds of views represented so we can understand whats happening in the rest of the country. And then we can learn to rebut those arguments, instead of shunting them aside. I think its important for those people to take seriously that a large share of the country supports the president of the United States and to include them in their editorial projects and their projects on discourse. And if they dont, you should be suspicious about what their actual priorities are. Because theyre not walking the walk.

Listen to this full conversation below, and subscribe to the Gist onApple Podcasts,Overcast,Spotify,Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.Join Slate Plus, and enjoy ad-free episodes of the show.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Read the original here:

Yascha Mounk and Osita Nwanevu Debate the State of Free Speech, and That Letter - Slate

Until fairly recently, there was ambivalence on the issue of female circumcision, as it used to be called. Is it acceptable for westerners to criticise the practice? Its a tradition, one Arabist professor told me about 30 years ago, as if that were an incontrovertible answer. No one outside a tradition had the right to pronounce on that tradition, he meant. And the old English tradition of colonialism and racism, I asked, is that all right too? He didnt respond.

Since then, female circumcision has somehow been allocated to the category of things of which were allowed to disapprove; it is now called Female Genital Mutilation. But a view that remains pretty much statutory is the moral relativism of the Arabist professor the view that nothing can be considered right or wrong except within a particular culture at a particular point in time. Who are you to say that? Whose truth? It may be true for you, but Arent all cultures as good as one another? remain standard arguments, often fuelled by guilt or resentment towards colonialism. Yet can relativism be squared with the condemnation of what it condemns, or even with condemning at all? Only comparatively recently perhaps not fully till after the exposure of Americas interference in Latin America or the fall of the Soviet Empire did colonialism came to be seen as a major evil. It used to be taken for granted. There were still 16 empires in existence in 1914.

For the relativist, can views and practices strictly count as wrong if they are, or were once, considered right by enough people in a particular culture at a particular time? Certainly the holders and performers of those views and practices cannot justifiably be called bad so long as those views and practices are (or were) part of their engrained cultural background, and are (or were) held and performed in good faith. Even a non-relativist might agree. For why should members of a particular culture and era be expected to rise above it? Indeed how, according to relativism, can they?

The relativist might, however, feel compelled to abandon relativism in the case of slavery, even though it has been an immemorial practice that was only outlawed in the 19th century, and had, for at least the three previous centuries, been a worldwide phenomenon. Especially as practiced by Europeans and Arabs, slavery has a claim to being considered eternally wrong. Who cares that it was generally condoned? If anyones statue deserved to be toppled, Colstons surely did. And Rhodess good deeds may not be sufficient to redeem ones that were unsavoury, even for his time. But Hume? His statue in Edinburgh is now threatened. Of course he wrote racist things. So did Kant, statues of whom in Germany must surely be due for toppling. Locke had shares in the slave-trading Royal Africa Company, and helped draft the 1669 constitution of Carolina, clause 110 of which enjoined that Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.

As philosophers, Locke, Hume and Kant were committed to questioning accepted beliefs; which in most areas they did. They could, therefore, rightly be held to more timelessly absolute standards than the rest of us. Even if it can be called wrong only in an absolute, non-relative sense, some of what they said and did cannot simply be dismissed (which wrongdoing so often is) as a mistake, and should not be obscured or whitewashed.

Yet, given the rest of their work and legacies, it seems unfair to pronounce those men to be undeserving of elevation, let alone wicked. They were writing at a time when it was virtually unquestionable (as, of course, it still is for many people) that your own country, tribe, culture or religion uniquely possessed the truth, that it had the best (often the only real) rules and conventions, and altogether was the best. And, like other Enlightenment thinkers, they were devoted to challenging European ideas and customs, and celebrating the excellences of other cultures.

Leibniz said Europe needed missionaries from China, which had superior ethics and politics; Diderot lauded Tahitian freedom and logic over the crabbed irrationality of French Christianity; Montaigne questioned whether the vices of Brazilian cannibals were any worse than Europeans. Ideas that we find to be held in common and in high esteem around us, he wrote, seem to be universal and natural, which is why we think that it is reason that is unhinged whenever custom is. Enlightenment fiction supplemented Enlightenment philosophy. The virtue and integrity of Voltaires ingenu reared by Huron Indians highlighted his French hosts hypocrisy. Montesquieus Persians revealed Parisian flaws. You are more barbarous than we are, said Aphra Benns Prince Orinoko.

In practice the Enlightenment could be, and was, used as a mask for colonialism and racism the oddly un-excoriated Napoleon, for instance, promoted the Enlightenment on horseback (ie, sought world-dominion) and he reintroduced slavery only eight years after the French revolutionaries had abolished it. But, as we are constantly told, an ideology or creed cannot be disqualified from having the highest principles whatever the atrocities committed in its name.

Anyway, without the Enlightenment, cultural relativism and identity politics would probably never have existed.

A key Enlightenment legacy was freedom of speech, which, as John Stuart Mill would later articulate, is essential in combatting the tyranny of the majority, with their conventions, dogmas and disapproval; as are experiments in living. He conceded that an opinion may be expressed that is horribly rebarbative to our accepted views but after all, he pointed out, these may not be infallible. The uncomfortable opinion may contain some truth, in which case it will be useful; and it is useful anyway, even if wholly false, because truths need to be challenged to ensure their living vivacity and prevent them from becoming stagnant and dogmatic. According to Mill, the only occasions when free speech is not in order are when it is liable to cause harm or incite violence (and inevitably, for all his beneficial influence on our legal and moral customs, he has been taken to task for the open-endedness of his concept of harm).

Offending and being offensive might not, for Mill, have counted as outweighing the value of free speech. Offensive then meant (still does according to its dictionary definition) causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed. Yet it has acquired a weightier meaning causing resentment, upset or annoyance that is felt justifiably because a lack of respect has been shown. It has become a moral term, with a claim to some sort of objectivity such that the person accused of being offensive rightly incurs reprimand.

Some transpeople claim that it is offensive to countenance debate on whether sex is biological, or whether a cis-girl or -boy should be considered too young to decide to transition before the age of 18. And they assume that whatever they call offensive not only offends them but ought to offend absolutely everyone, if not in all eras, then at least in the present one. Suppose it didnt and doesnt, that what they call offensive would not until recently even have qualified as controversial, and would still be endorsed by a high proportion of people? By the same token, so would capital punishment, and that is no reason not to condemn it. But it is only no reason if you invoke some sort of moral absolutism by which certain things qualify as right or wrong whatever societys verdict an appeal that ill accords with the wokes relativism, especially when it comes to judging customs in cultures they dont want to criticise.

It was free speech that broke the iron bonds of social censure and custom. Yet, now that it has helped us achieve so much that was once denied or forbidden, it tends to be derided as the perverse luxury of the reactionary (just as liberalism is vilified and equated with ruthless right-wing libertarianism). Who are you to judge? Whose truth? there is none have become, though not explicitly, Who are you to say anything that might question what I, as a member of a particular identity group, know to be true and morally right? For all their lip service to relativism, the current Righteous think, or seem to, that the nature of truth and goodness has now been ascertained once and for all.

Certain principles, apparently, are infallible. And not only infallible now; they always have been, even before being enunciated, so that anyone who does not espouse them, or did not in other periods of history, counts as reprehensible. Harm (or offence) is objective too; it is constituted by questioning these principles. Enlightenment thinkers are constantly sneered at for having sought to achieve progress, assuming that progress must be the same for everyone no matter their ethnicity or culture. Yet, equally, it seems that seeking progress must actually have been in order after all, for it has now, apparently, reached its culmination.

Enlightenment thinkers are also condemned for surreptitiously basing their notion of the ideal human on that of the white entitled male. Yet, perhaps in compensation, members of each identity group talk as if the default nature of a human being is the one they themselves inhabit or identify as. Thus the majority of human beings arent, it turns out, born with a fairly obvious sex (a new-borns genitals tend to be oddly enlarged) but need to be assigned one. The category woman is now divided into ciswoman and transwoman, as if it begs the question to assume that a woman is ordinarily cis, as, given the statistics, she surely is. This may help rectify smug certainties about what counts as the normal default category, and perhaps is only a temporary measure until the balance has shifted, but it is often disingenuous. The presuppositions and dogmas, the doctoring of scientific consensus that it demands seem to exceed those required for believing in God.

Tyranny was once the prerogative of the privileged and wealthy. Thanks to attempts at democracy, there then arose what Mill called the tyranny of the majority. Currently there is a tyranny of the minorities, the power of the righteous, the authority of specialised victimhoods. Specialisation, however, hampers activists attempts to sing from a unified hymn-sheet. Victimhoods clash, even in cases of intersectionality (when someone can boast of belonging to several simultaneously), so there has to be, if only tacitly, a pecking order. Feminism, for instance, is fairly low down on it, and is trumped by cultural relativism; which is why criticism for mens patronising and demeaning attitudes to women only seems to apply to men within the Western tradition. Men outside it do not apparently, qualify for the same critique, although in some communities mansplaining is the least of a womans worries she is explicitly (and legally) declared to be subject to male guardianship.

If you think through the thought of Hume, Kant and Locke, in each case racism is broadly untenable in it; indeed it has helped to expose and oppose racism. Hume argued that morality is based on humans natural attunement to one anothers feelings and a discomfort at sensing others discomfort that can be elevated into more impartial justice. Kant claimed that morality is founded on the equal value of everyone to which each of our actions should do justice. He and Locke were instrumental in articulating and furthering human rights.

If, on the other hand, you think through the activists purportedly unified agenda, you find that you cant think through it. It is too riddled with inconsistency and incoherence to stand up. Which is why its supporters cannot oppose its questioners with argument, and resort instead to accusations of phobia and hatred, and to issuing rape and death threats. They say, often with reason, that they feel unsafe then proceed deliberately to ensure the certifiable unsafety of those they disapprove of.

In the interests of everyone, whatever their identity, lets abjure the unthinking cowardice of those stumbling to distance themselves from J K Rowling and other misspeakers. Lets not be like medieval Christians piously asserting that there are three persons in one God without, in most cases, knowing what on earth that could mean. Lets not condemn heretics to eternal damnation.

Continued here:

"Who are you to say that?" On free speech and wokeness - TheArticle