Responding to a call for chaplains to reconcile and properly support LGBTQI+ soldiers – ArmyTimes.com

Posted on by

When I first read the recently published article by Chaplain (Major) David Evans entitled, Starting again: A call for chaplains to reconcile and properly support LGBTQI+ soldiers, my initial response was one of appreciation. I shared the article on Facebook and stated, The entire First Amendment is brought to bear in this one publication. A sensitive but important discussion. Chaplain Evans appropriately states, A chaplain is at the service of all soldiers. This is absolutely true. The oath I have taken to support and defend the Constitution of the United States means my charge as a chaplain a religious leader is to champion the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects. However, each chaplains interpretation of sacred texts and traditions pertaining to the capability of performing religious rites is a matter of the free exercise of religion.

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services states, no Service member may require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain. At the core of the DoDI is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause and the associated Establishment Clause together comprise the concept of freedom of religion inherent in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is the first segment which states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Free Exercise Clause is the second segment which estates, [Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the Establishment Clause prevents the state and federal governments from mandating religious practices. In contrast, the Free Exercise Clause prevents state and federal governments from inhibiting the religious practices of individuals.

To the heart of Chaplain Evans article, how the Chaplain Corps supports LGBTQI+ soldiers is of utmost importance. Recent command initiatives to enforce the standard that all persons are treated with dignity and respect are imperative. Existing policy, doctrine and regulation guide the Chaplain Corps and mandate every soldier, dependent and civilian is treated with dignity and respect. Nonetheless, as chaplains care for those whom we serve we must hold fast to our religious convictions in order to be the religious leaders the military requires us to be. If religious convictions do not matter for the religious leader, then there is reason to believe those religious convictions should not matter for anyone. Religious leaders and communities should not only be permitted, but should be encouraged, to interpret their sacred texts and traditions and to act in accordance with those interpretations (so long as their actions are not criminal and do not impinge on the Establishment Clause).

One of the issues at stake is whether or not a persons sexual orientation is a matter of religion. Most religious leaders worldwide believe sexual orientation is a matter of religious importance. The Department of Defense understands individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) which do not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline or health and safety as being protected under the banner of religious liberty (DoDI 1300.17). The argument Chaplain Evans presents is essentially that if the Chaplain Corps is not careful, individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs by chaplains regarding normative practices of sexuality could collectively have an adverse impact on the military. This is a fair caution, but could also be misconstrued. If state and federal governments begin requiring chaplains to transgress sincerely held beliefs, then we will restrict the free exercise of religion of the very people whom we have charged with the task of protecting the free exercise of religion.

In summary, the Chaplain Corps should unequivocally set the standard for treating people with dignity and respect; and there is room for improvement here. However, as chaplains, we should champion the free exercise of religion of those who have taken the oath to serve as chaplains just as much as we champion the free exercise of religion of those for whom we have taken the oath to serve. If we do not account for the free exercise of religion for all soldiers regardless of category, we will undermine our ability to advocate for others.

Chaplain (Capt.) Jordan Henricks is an active duty Army Chaplain currently serving with the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Commentary: The opinions expressed in this article are my personal opinions and do not represent the United States Army or the Army Chaplain Corps

Editors note: This is an op-ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman,haltman@militarytimes.com.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

Read the original:

Responding to a call for chaplains to reconcile and properly support LGBTQI+ soldiers - ArmyTimes.com

To save democracy, let’s start by saving the First Amendment – Salon

Posted on by

American democracy is in danger, and American journalism needs to respond with more than slogans.

Editorials are a good start and the Boston Globe has nowset the bar awfully damn high.

But the mightiest weapon in the journalistic arsenal isn't opinion columns.It's relentless news coverage.

Journalists have the unique ability to ask questions on behalf of the public, demand answers, assess truthfulness, decry stonewalling and do it all again the next day.

To rescue and revive democracy, news organizations don't need to "take sides" with one party or another, and they don't need to publish articles full of opinions.

What the top editors in our top newsroom must do, however, is set the agenda. They need to decide what is newsworthy, and then bring their resources to bear accordingly.

That's the true power of the press.

And those editors should start with an easy one by relentlessly covering the Justice Department's recent outrageous seizures of reporters' communication records. That means news storiesevery dayuntil the public is able to fully understand how they were authorized and by whom, how they were allowed to proceedand what will prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Assaults on freedom of the press aren't "inside baseball." These are the front lines. This is a huge story. As David Boardman, dean of the journalism school at Temple University, tweeted:

The formerly secret subpoenas were for records from reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, in order to identify their confidential sources. Two of the subpoenas were accompanied by outrageous gag orders. (Gag orders on news organizations!)

Their overdue public disclosure by the Justice Department in recent weeks made major headlines and spawned a number of angry opinion pieces.

But with the notable exception of the Times, there's been relatively little news coverage since then. (On Thursday night, the Times continued its streak with abarnburnerreport that Trump's DOJ had similarly subpoenaed communications records of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.)

What's particularly missing even from the Times coverage is the application of pressure on the current Justice Department leadership to fully explain what happened, when, why and how. That should be the drumbeat, every day.

Although the various leak investigations originated during the Trump administration, they extended well into Biden's. A huge element of this story is why those investigations weren't immediately abandoned and condemned and why the Justice Department under Merrick Garland won't come clean about what happened.

Some of the opinion pieces were powerful, particularly the one from the normally invisible Washington Post publisher,Fred Ryan.He appropriately pointed out that "the Biden Justice Department not only allowed these disturbing intrusions to continue it intensified the government's attack on First Amendment rights before finally backing down in the face of reporting about its conduct."

In fact, it was the Biden administration thatimposedthe gag order on the New York Times's lawyer, preventing him from disclosing the government's efforts to newsroom leaders or the four reporters whose email logs were at issue.[UPDATE June 13, 12:30 p.m.: Technically, the gag order was imposed by a federal magistrate judge, responding to an application from the Justice Department. The March gag order amended aJanuary orderthat had fully gagged Google from talking to anyone about the records request. TheMarch orderallowed Google to tell the Times's lawyer, but imposed a gag on him as well.]

"This escalation, on Biden's watch, represents an unprecedented assault on American news organizations and their efforts to inform the public about government wrongdoing," Ryan wrote.

The Justice Department on June 5 announced that it would no longer use subpoenas or other legal methods to obtain information from journalists about their sources, elicitingsome new headlines.

But that should not have placated anyone in the news business. What it should have prompted is a slew of additional questions about how this new policy would be applied in an accountable fashion.

AsAnna Diakun and Trevor Timmwrote in the Columbia Journalism Review, the new policy is "a significant improvement to the DOJ's previous approach. Still, there are questions to be answered. When will the DOJ officially update its news-media guidelines to reflect this change? And as theTimesnoted, the DOJ's statement appears to leave some 'wiggle room' surrounding the circumstances in which the policy applies, limiting it to when journalists are 'doing their jobs.' What exactly does this mean?"

Their final, critical question: Who will the Justice Department considera member of the news media?

None of the news reports I saw about the policy shift showed anything likethe appropriate skepticism. For that, you had to watchtelevision interviews with some of the reporters who were directly targeted.

On CBS Now, for instance, Times reporterMatt Apuzzomade the crucial point that there's no reason to take the Justice Department at its word until it fully explains itself. "First we have to understand what happened. How did it happen? Why did it happen?"

"This is becoming a bipartisan pattern," Apuzzo said.

Journalism groups are justifiably concerned.Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that "serious unanswered questions remain about what happened in each of these cases."

And by coincidence, the esteemed free-press advocate Joel Simonannounced this weekthat he will step down after 15 years as executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. He told the Times: "Governments are increasingly taking aggressive action toward journalists, and there are very few consequences."

In addition to the three demands for records in leak investigations, we also learned in the last few days about a Biden-era demand from the FBI that deserves more coverage. The FBI issued a subpoena to USA Today, demanding it hand over identifying information about readers who had accessed a particular story online during a 35-minute window.

The request related to a Feb. 2 articleabout the shooting death of two FBI agents while serving a warrant in a child exploitation case in Florida. The 35-minute window in question was more than 12 hours after the shooter had killed himself inside his barricaded apartment.

The request was bizarre and inexplicable, and should have been blocked by superiors. Instead, it was only withdrawn "after investigators found the person through other means, according to a notice the Justice Department sent to USA TODAY's attorneys Saturday."

How could that have happened?

Some of the ideally relentless news coverage would also involve questions for the news executives who received subpoenas.

Why did New York Times lawyer David McCraw honor such an obviously absurd gag order? (The order, imposed in March, related to records that were four years old, evidently as part of a fishing expedition aimed to show that former FBI director James Comey disclosed a "secret" document that wasmost likely a hoax. I am not making that up.)

Why, once McCraw was allowed to discuss the request with Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and CEO Meredith Kopit Levien, didtheyhonor the gag order? Why didn't they just call a press conference?

There are much tougher questions for CNN, which in its own reporting buried the fact that it caved to the Justice Department'srequestfor reporter Barbara Starr's email logsfor June and July 2017.

CNN lawyerDavid Vigilante, honoring a gag order the whole time, apparently fought the Justice Department's request from May 2020 all the way through Januaryof this year. He even won a court ruling that CNN shouldn't have to turn over the logs of emails that were internal to the company.

But that, apparently, was what CNN cared about most. So six days into the Biden administration, CNN turned over a list of Starr's external email contacts during the specified time period to the Justice Department.

CNN'sofficial lineis that those were "essentially records that the government already had from its side of these communications."

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Transparency and accountability for everyone!

Read more:

To save democracy, let's start by saving the First Amendment - Salon

The journalistic crusade to save democracy starts with the First Amendment – Press Watch

Posted on by

American democracy is in danger, and American journalism needs to respond with more than slogans.

Editorials are a good start and the Boston Globe has now set the bar awfully damn high.

But the mightiest weapon in the journalistic arsenal isnt opinion columns its relentless news coverage.

Journalists have the unique ability to ask questions on behalf of the public, demand answers, assess truthfulness, decry stonewalling and do it all again the next day.

To rescue and revive democracy, news organizations dont need to take sides with one party or another, they dont need to publish articles full of opinions.

What the top editors in our top newsroom must do, however, is set the agenda. They need to decide what is newsworthy, and then bring their resources to bear accordingly.

Thats the true power of the press.

And those editors should start with an easy one by relentlessly covering the Justice Departments recent outrageous seizures of reporters communication records. That means news stories every day until the public is able to fully understand how they were authorized and by whom, how they were allowed to proceed, and what will prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Assaults on freedom of the press arent inside baseball. These are the front lines. This is a huge story. As David Boardman, dean of the journalism school at Temple University, tweeted:

The formerly secret subpoenas were for records from reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, in order to identify their confidential sources. Two of the subpoenas were accompanied by outrageous gag orders. (Gag orders on news organizations!)

Their overdue public disclosure by the Justice Department in recent weeks made fairly major headlines and spawned a number of angry opinion pieces.

But with the notable exception of the Times, theres been relatively little news coverage since. (The Times on Thursday night continued its streak with a barnburner report that Trumps DOJ similarly subpoenaed communications records of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.)

Whats particularly missing even from the Times coverage is the application of pressure on the current Justice Department leadership to fully explain what happened, when, why and how. That should be the drumbeat, every day.

Although the various leak investigations originated during the Trump administration, they extended well into Bidens. A huge element of this story is why those investigations werent immediately abandoned and condemned and why the Justice Department under Merrick Garland wont come clean about what happened.

Some of the opinion pieces were powerful, particularly the one from the normally invisible Washington Post publisher, Fred Ryan.Ryan appropriately pointed out that the Biden Justice Department not only allowed these disturbing intrusions to continue it intensified the governments attack on First Amendment rights before finally backing down in the face of reporting about its conduct.

In fact, it was the Biden administration that imposed the gag order on the New York Timess lawyer, preventing him from disclosing the governments efforts to newsroom leaders or the four reporters whose email logs were at issue. [UPDATE June 13, 12:30 PM: Technically, the gag order was imposed by a federal magistrate judge, responding to an application from the Justice Department. The March gag order amended a January order that had fully gagged Google from talking to anyone about the records request. The March order allowed Google to tell the Timess lawyer, but imposed a gag on him as well.]

This escalation, on Bidens watch, represents an unprecedented assault on American news organizations and their efforts to inform the public about government wrongdoing, Ryan wrote.

The Justice Department on June 5 announced that it would no longer use subpoenas or other legal methods to obtain information from journalists about their sources, eliciting some new headlines.

But that should not have placated anyone in the news business. What it should have prompted is a slew of additional questions about how this new policy would be applied in an accountable fashion.

As Anna Diakun and Trevor Timm wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review, the new policy is a significant improvement to the DOJs previous approach. Still, there are questions to be answered. When will the DOJ officially update its news-media guidelines to reflect this change? And as the Timesnoted, the DOJs statement appears to leave some wiggle room surrounding the circumstances in which the policy applies, limiting it to when journalists are doing their jobs. What exactly does this mean?

Their final, critical question: Who will DOJ count as a member of the news media?

None of the news reports I saw about the policy shift showed any of the appropriate skepticism. For that, you had to be watching television interviews with some of the reporters who were directly targeted.

On CBS Now, for instance, Times reporter Matt Apuzzo made the crucial point that theres no reason to take the Justice Department at its word until it fully explains itself. First we have to understand what happened How did it happen? Why did it happen?

This is becoming a bipartisan pattern, Apuzzo said.

Journalism groups are justifiably concerned. Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that serious unanswered questions remain about what happened in each of these cases.

And by coincidence, the esteemed free-press advocate Joel Simon announced this week that he will step down after 15 years as the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. He told the Times: Governments are increasingly taking aggressive action toward journalists, and there are very few consequences.

In addition to the three demands for records in leak investigations, we also learned in the last few days about a Biden-era demand from the FBI that deserves more coverage. The FBI issued a subpoena to USA Today, demanding it hand over the identifying information about readers who had accessed a particular story online during a 35-minute window.

The request related to a Feb. 2 article about the shooting death of two FBI agents while serving a warrant in a child exploitation case in Florida. The 35-minute window in question was more than 12 hours after the shooter had killed himself inside his barricaded apartment.

The request was bizarre, inexplicable, and should have been blocked by superiors. Instead, it was only withdrawn after investigators found the person through other means, according to a notice the Justice Department sent to USA TODAYs attorneys Saturday.

How could that have happened?

Some of the ideally relentless news coverage would also involve questions for the news executives who were subpoenaed.

Why did New York Times lawyer David McCraw honor such an obviously absurd gag order? (The gag order, imposed in March, related to records that were four years old, evidently as part of a fishing expedition aimed to show that former FBI director James Comey disclosed a secret document that was most likely a hoax. I am not making that up.)

Why, once McCraw was allowed to discuss the request with Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and CEO Meredith Kopit Levien, did they honor the gag order? Why didnt they just call a press conference?

And there are much tougher questions for CNN, which in its own reporting buried the fact that it caved to the Justice Departments request for email logs for reporter Barbara Starr for June and July 2017.

CNN lawyer David Vigilante, honoring a gag the whole time, apparently fought the Justice Departments request from May 2020 all the way through January 26. He even won a court ruling that CNN shouldnt have to turn over the logs of emails that were internal to the company.

But that, apparently, was what CNN cared about most. So six days into the Biden administration, CNN turned over a list of Starrs external email contacts during the specified time period to the Justice Department.

CNNs official line is that those were essentially records that the government already had from its side of these communications.

Sorry, that doesnt cut it.

Transparency and accountability for everyone!

Read this article:

The journalistic crusade to save democracy starts with the First Amendment - Press Watch

A YouTuber tried to ‘audit’ how well Danbury follows Constitutional rights. The answer is complicated. – Danbury News Times

Posted on by

DANBURY The YouTuber who has recorded his interactions with police and security guards at the Danbury Library and City Hall claims they tried to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.

But experts say the situation is more complicated.

Theres a lot more nuance than that, said Laszlo Pinter, the citys attorney.

Danbury police department has launched an internal investigation into its officers response captured in YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes video where he refused to stop recording at the Danbury Library, despite a library policy banning filming without permission.

A second video, where police are called when the YouTuber declines to give his name to a security guard at Danbury City Hall, is not part of the investigation, Chief Patrick Ridenhour said.

The five officers from the library incident, including a city sergeant who the YouTuber says he intends to sue, remain on duty, Ridenhour said.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

It has not been necessary to put anyone one on leave, he said in an email.

Ridenhour declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. Hearst Connecticut Media requested through the Freedom of Information Act the records of the officers involved in the library incident, as well as the body camera footage.

Both videos are edited.

I only see one side of the story, Mayor Joe Cavo said. Until I get all the facts, Im going to reserve my comment and see what happens with the rest of the information and how things proceed.

Danbury plans to keep its building policies in place, although officials are reviewing the incidents.

First Amendment law is very complicated, Cavo said. Fourth Amendment law is very complicated. Were trying to sort out how that relates to our responsibilities here as a public agency, and were working out those details now within inside counsel and outside counsel.

Reyes is part of a social media movement known as First Amendment Audits, where people film in public buildings, such as libraries or municipal centers, in an attempt to showcase how officials abide by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press.

Allied Universal, the security company that the Danbury guards in the videos work for, trains its staff on how to respond to these auditors, the company spokeswoman said.

Guards take a specific training module on these audits when they join the company. The module includes appropriate practices for how to handle these situations, spokeswoman Vanessa Showalter said.

Guards are informed if auditors are in their area and get additional tips if so, she said.

The company has seen auditors the most in California, where Allied Universal, is based, she said.

Their whole goal is to provoke on-site security professionals in order to illicit a negative response, she said. The reason why they do this is so they can get a lot of likes on their Facebook and their social sites in order to get money. That is their whole goal.

Reyes told Hearst Connecticut Media on Friday that he aims to exercise his rights and educate police through his videos. He said he aims to start an outreach program in Connecticut where activists like himself could shed light on rights violations and is thinking about starting a YouTube channel to teach kids about these issues.

He said he has not taken any criminal justice courses and learned what he knows through YouTube and other online sources.

Im a big believer of knowing your rights, he said.

His channel, Long Island Audit, has about 24,200 subscribers as of Monday evening, up from around 22,800 subscribers on Friday. His video at Danbury Library has 66,000 views, while the City Hall video has 49,000 views.

Heck, if it does nothing other than make government employees aware that we the people have the right to observe that which is observable by the naked eye, it cant be a bad thing from where we sit, said Dan Barrett, legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

Cavo said hed rather see a collaborative approach.

I see what this guys doing and he has the right to do that, he said. For me, I dont know. I think in this world we need to figure out how to work together instead of instigate.

Some police officers know Constitutional law better than others, Barrett said.

Its never been clear to me that the training, if any, that they get on the free speech and the right to memorialize has any effect, he said.

Individuals have the right to film in and from public places, Barrett said.

Anywhere that you are allowed to be as a member of the public and anything you can see with your own eyes, its fair game, he said.

But the rules get trickier in places that are more sensitive, he said. Libraries can be places where people research or conduct private activities, such as research health related information, he said.

So, its unclear whether the librarys policy banning filming or photography would stand in court.

It depends a little bit on whats restricted where and what the librarys interests are, Barrett said.

The library policy states that filming or photography is not allowed inside the building without permission from the library director. Patrons may not take photos or videos of other library users without their permission.

Motivations dont matter when it comes to the First Amendment, Barrett said.

It doesnt particularly matter from the First Amendment standpoint, Barrett said. Thats all fair game. What matters is whether the library has a good enough reason and an appropriately tailored policy.

In a second video uploaded Sunday, Reyes goes to City Hall to file his intent to sue a Danbury police sergeant but refuses to give his name to the security guard, as required for visitors under COVID-19 precautions.

I shouldnt have to surrender my Fourth Amendment right to enter a public building, Reyes says.

Dont go there, the security guard says.

Dont go there, Reyes says. This is the United States of America.

I am the guard here, the security officer says. I dont make the rules. I enforce the rules. This is what they want me to do. They want me to take your name, give you a card and you go upstairs.

Collecting names to contact trace for COVID-19 in public buildings would likely not violate peoples protection from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Barrett said.

In the time of COVID mercifully waning though it is in Connecticut it may be the case that collecting names is O.K., providing there is sufficient restriction on the use of those names, Barrett said.

Its fine if Danbury throws out the names after 14 days, but not if the city uses them to track if those people are paying their taxes, for example, he said.

Pinter argued the YouTubers claim about the Fourth Amendment violation is misplaced. Asking for someones name to enter a public building for COVID or security reasons is reasonable, he said.

Asking for identification is not a seizure if its reasonable, Pinter said. If its reasonable, its not a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Read the original here:

A YouTuber tried to 'audit' how well Danbury follows Constitutional rights. The answer is complicated. - Danbury News Times

How, exactly, does Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan want to protect speech on college campuses? This Week in the C – cleveland.com

Posted on by

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan is teaming up with a conservative youth organization and a Florida congresswoman to start a new congressional caucus to push back on woke cancel culture on college campuses.

Jordan says he wants to defend freedom for Americans everywhere. Were talking about what that means on This Week in the CLE.

Listen online here.

Editor Chris Quinn hosts our daily half-hour news podcast, with Leila Atassi, Jane Kahoun and me.

Youve been sending Chris lots of thoughts and suggestions on our from-the-newsroom text account, in which he shares what were thinking about at cleveland.com. You can sign up for free by sending a text to 216-868-4802.

Here are the questions were answering today:

Why is Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan teaming up with a youth group in defense of the First Amendment?

Why is Dennis Kucinich, who was tossed out of office as Cleveland mayor after one 2-year-term 40 years ago, running to get the job anew?

What do we know about the collision between the USS Cod submarine and a Coast Guard Cutter along the Cleveland lakeshore. The Cod is not even operable, is it?

Why are Ohio Senate Republicans trying to stop cities from offering free broadband access? Isnt the general consensus today that we need to make sure everyone has low-cost, high-speed broadband as a basic need?

What did Northeast Ohio spend its stimulus checks on over the past year?

Is a Rule 29 decision coming down in a Cleveland murder case involving the brother of a famous gymnast, in which three people were killed at a party?

Want more? You can find all our past episodes here.

We have an Apple podcasts channel exclusively for this podcast. Subscribe here.

Do you get your podcasts on Spotify. Find us here.

If you use Stitcher, we are here.

RadioPublic is another popular podcast vehicle, and we are here.

On Google Podcasts, we are here.

On PodParadise, find us here.

And on PlayerFM, we are here.

Read the original:

How, exactly, does Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan want to protect speech on college campuses? This Week in the C - cleveland.com

Opinion: The US government crossed a line by seizing reporters’ records. What happens now? – Poynter

Posted on by

When you really stop and think about it, what was done was unconscionable.

The Justice Department of the United States of America went after the phone and email records of journalists from some of the nations most respected news outlets. Not only that, they did so in secret.

The journalists had done nothing wrong. They broke no laws. And yet in an effort to root out leaks within the government, as well as who knows what else, the DOJ targeted the records of journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN.

And, I repeat, this happened in the United States of America, where the very First Amendment of the Constitution includes the freedom of the press. It started under the Donald Trump administration but apparently continued under Joe Bidens first couple months as president.

On Monday, CNN Pentagon reporter Barbara Starr wrote that the time was finally right to speak out on the Trump administrations months-long efforts to secretly gain access to tens of thousands of my 2017 work and personal emails and my work and personal phone records.

As Starr pointed out, she was not the subject of an investigation, and there was no suggestion that she had done anything wrong. The same goes for the other reporters targeted. Starr said she had no idea what the Trump administration was looking for.

Biden said reporters records will no longer be seized in his administration, and new policies will be put in place. The New York Times Charlie Savage wrote, In testimony last week, (Attorney General Merrick) Garland said the new policy will be the most protective of journalists ability to do their jobs in history. But many details remain unresolved, including how broadly the new protections will apply and whether he will implement it via a method that is easy or difficult for a future administration to roll back.

Or, as Starr wrote, Unless new protections are codified, this could all happen again to any journalist.

Starr added she is genuinely horrified by what happened. All of this is a sheer abuse of power in my view first against CNN and myself, since our work is and should always be protected by the First Amendment. But more importantly and more significantly, it is an abuse against the free press in this country, whether you are a television network correspondent or a reporter at a small town newspaper uncovering wrongdoing.

John Demers, the head of the Justice Departments National Security Division, announced to staff he will step down at the end of next week. Demers is a holdover from the Trump administration and was expected to step down eventually. But, The New York Times Katie Benner wrote, Mr. Demerss departure also comes as Democrats and First Amendment advocates have attacked the Justice Department following revelations that prosecutors supervised by Mr. Demers seized the records of reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN and of top House Democrats while investigating leaks of classified information.

On Monday, Garland met with leaders of the three news organizations whose journalists had their records confiscated.

The meeting included New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and deputy general counsel David McCraw; Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan along with executive editor Sally Buzbee and general counsel Jay Kennedy; and CNN was represented by Washington bureau chief Sam Feist and general counsel David Vigilante.

Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, spoke on behalf of the news organizations, adding that the meeting was off the record. Brown added, We are very encouraged by what we heard inside the meeting.

Sulzberger put out a statement that said, In todays meeting, we sought a full accounting of what happened and requested that the Department of Justice codify that it will no longer seize journalists records during leak investigations. We were encouraged by Attorney General Garlands statements but we will continue to push until our concerns are addressed.

In his statement, Ryan said, It was encouraging to hear the Attorney Generals commitment to the first amendment rights of all Americans. While we welcome the new policy to refrain from using compulsory legal procedures to seize reporter records in leak investigations, we feel steps must be taken to ensure it is durable and binding on future administrations. It is also essential that there be a full and complete public accounting of all the actions taken against our news organizations, including the secret subpoenas and gag orders, and an explanation as to what has been done with the information that was seized.

Its a little curious that three news organizations fighting for press rights would agree to an off-the-record conversation. According to The Washington Posts Matt Zapotosky, Brown said, We wanted to have a conversation inside the building where all sides could fully and freely share views.

In a statement, the Justice Department said, In the coming weeks the Attorney General will develop and distribute to the field a memo detailing the current policy. The Attorney General committed to working with members of the news media to codify the memo setting out these new rules into regulation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin being interviewed by NBC News. (Courtesy: NBC News)

During an exclusive interview with NBC News Keir Simmons, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed accusations that the Russian government or hackers were behind cyberattacks in the U.S.

Putin told Simmons, We have been accused of all kinds of things. Election interference, cyberattacks and so on and so forth. And not once, not once, not one time, did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof. Just unfounded accusations.

In addition, Putin denied putting out a hit on political rival Alexei Navalny, but would not guarantee that Navalny would get out of prison alive.

Look, Putin said, such decisions in this country are not made by the president.

When asked whether it was a coincidence that several other political rivals had been assassinated in recent years, Putin said, We dont have this kind of habit of assassinating anybody.

In an article for NBCNews.com, Simmons, Corky Siemaszko and Yuliya Talmazan wrote, Throughout the interview, Putin relied on the Kremlins time-tested strategy of deflecting criticism by pointing out Americas failures, suggesting that criticism from the West was hypocritical because every country, including Russia and the U.S., acts in its own self-interest.

Also notable were Putins kind words for Donald Trump. Putin told Simmons, Mr. Trump is an extraordinary individual, talented individual. Otherwise he would not have become U.S. president. He is a colorful individual.

NBC News interview comes as Biden and Putin prepare to meet this week in Geneva.

I mentioned last week how all the major news anchors ABCs David Muir, CBSs Norah ODonnell and NBCs Lester Holt will be anchoring tonight from Geneva ahead of the summit. In addition, Fox News Channels John Roberts also will be in Geneva, anchoring America Reports (1 to 3 p.m. Eastern) today and Wednesday.

Ahead of Wednesdays meeting, here are some notable works to get you ready:

I actually found this to be a brilliant headline despite the you dont say aspect to it. The headline in The Washington Post: Coronavirus infections dropping where people are vaccinated, rising where they are not, Post analysis finds.

The report from Dan Keating, Naema Ahmed, Fenit Nirappil, Isaac Stanley-Becker and Lenny Bernstein also says, States with lower vaccination also have significantly higher hospitalization rates, The Post found. Poorly vaccinated communities have not been reporting catastrophic conditions. Instead, they are usually seeing new infections holding steady or increasing without overwhelming local hospitals.

While that might be encouraging, the Post wrote, But experts worry that unvaccinated people are falling into a false sense of security as more transmissible variants can rapidly spread in areas with a high concentration of unvaccinated people who have abandoned masking and social distancing.

Its a detailed report that requires your attention.

Christiane Amanpour. (Photo: Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

Christiane Amanpour, CNNs chief international anchor and host of PBSs Amanpour & Company, said on-air Monday that she has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She said she had major surgery and is now undergoing several months of chemotherapy for the very best possible long-term prognosis, and Im confident.

Amanpour told viewers, Im telling you this in the interest of transparency but in truth really mostly as a shoutout to early diagnosis to urge women to educate themselves on this disease, to get all the regular screenings and scans that you can, to always listen to your bodies, and of course to ensure that your legitimate medical concerns are not dismissed or diminished.

Amanpour, 63, has been with CNN since 1983 and is widely recognized as one of the top journalists in the world. Her career also includes moderating ABC News This Week and being a reporter for CBS News 60 Minutes. Bianna Golodryga, CNNs senior global affairs analyst, had been filling in for Amanpour on CNN for the past month.

In true professional and Amanpour fashion, she concluded her on-air statement by saying, So, thats my news. Now lets get to the news.

This week is the 50th anniversary of The New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers the U.S. Department of Defenses history of the countrys involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 that revealed how the Johnson Administration had lied to Congress and the American people about its involvement in the Vietnam War.

The New York Times is commemorating one of the most important newspaper stories and, maybe, the biggest journalistic scoop of all time with an amazing package: The Pentagon Papers at 50: A Special Report.

It includes an absolutely gripping and stunningly-well designed feature: Were Going to Publish The Oral History of the Pentagon Papers.

The package is elite and fascinating to all audiences, not just journalists and those who follow the journalism business closely.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.

Follow us onTwitterand onFacebook.

Here is the original post:

Opinion: The US government crossed a line by seizing reporters' records. What happens now? - Poynter

Opinion | It’s up to all of us to increase political freedom of speech on campus – UI The Daily Iowan

Posted on by

Republicans on campus shouldnt be stereotyped or afraid to speak up.

Ryan Adams for the Daily Iowan

Anti-mask protesters stand in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol building before the opening of the 2021 legislative session on Monday, Jan. 11, 2021. Despite Gov. Kim Reynolds emergency proclamation mandating masks worn when social distancing indoors is not possible, house republicans made the announcement last week that masks would not be required during the session.

My former professor said any kid who identifies as gay or lesbian and grows up in a conservative household will be oppressed.

This accusation makes it seem like you cannot be queer and conservative, and all conservatives are homophobic. However, Peter Thiel, a conservative who identifies as gay, spoke at the Republican National Convention after the 2016 election. As someone who cant have biological kids, Ill be happy with either a queer or straight kid. Its not right to automatically label a conservative transphobic or homophobic without asking about their views first.

Despite people assuming conservatives are transphobic or homophobic, many of us support LGBTQ rights. For example, a survey found 61 percent of Republicans support anti-discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations for gay and transgender people. According to a 2020 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, over half of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Conservatives need to add to diversity of opinion on campus by speaking out, but people also need to stop stereotyping us.

Micah Broekemeier, a UI junior majoring in history who is conservative, said conservatives need to speak out more. He said he wore MAGA hats and Trump shirts on campus and did not receive any hate on-campus for doing so.

During the election cycle, whatever candidate I supported, I wore it on my sleeve, Broekemeier said.

While Im glad Broekemeier has never felt any hate toward him because he is a conservative, there have been incidents of conservative beliefs being silenced at other universities. At the University of Northern Iowa, their student government denied a Student for Life group a chance to register as a student organization based on the claim they included hateful rhetoric.

UNI president Mark Nook overruled the senators decision. However, a conservative group of students should not have to go through all this trouble to have their First Amendment rights granted.

At my first homecoming at the University of Iowa in 2018, the UI College Republicans (UICRs) talked about how they were going to get booed and spit on while marching in the parade. On May 4, the UICRs drew chalk drawings, and students poured water on them.

Later on, the University of Iowa released a statement and updated chalk policy to reflect a change in the state Board of Regents policy manual to protect free speech on campus.

I understand conservatives not speaking up due to fear of mistreatment. The hate stems from people making assumptions about conservative without hearing us out. Instead, we should be asked about our beliefs rather than just people making assumptions.

Despite many generalizations such as Republicans being called ableists, Im pro-life because I think its heartbreaking so many others with disabilities are denied a chance at life because of abortion.

While conservatives may be the minority political party on campus, we shouldnt be stereotyped without asking our beliefs first. Conservatives on campus shouldnt be afraid to speak about their beliefs because theyre worried people will make assumptions about us such as being homophobic.

Liberals and conservatives need to contribute to diversity of speech. Liberals need to become more open-minded and accepting of conservatives, and Republicans on campus need to start speaking up.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Read more:

Opinion | It's up to all of us to increase political freedom of speech on campus - UI The Daily Iowan

Lazy Thinking in the Free Speech Debate Could Be Exploited by Extremists – Politics.co.uk

Posted on by

Recently Michelle Donelan, minister of state for universities, went on BBC Radio 4 to discuss the governments new and much vaunted higher education (freedom of speech) bill.

According to the accompanying press release, the bill would bring in new measures that will require universities and colleges registered with the Office for Students to defend free speech and help stamp out unlawful silencing.

If passed, the bill would entail fines for universities and compensation for speakers if events were cancelled, thereby essentially bringing an end to the no platform tactic.

When questioned about how this would apply to an issue like denying the Holocaust, Donelan responded: A lot of the things we would be standing up for would be hugely offensive, would be hugely hurtful, and seemed to confirm that the proposed law would indeed protect Holocaust deniers.

This has raised the shocking prospect that antisemites and notorious Holocaust deniers, such as disgraced historian David Irving and former British National Party leader Nick Griffin, could receive compensation if they were invited to speak at a university campus and the event was subsequently cancelled.

Since Donelans interview, reassurances have been offered and there has been talk of some sort of exemption in the policy for Holocaust denial. In a later tweet thread, Donelan clarified that antisemitism is abhorrent and will not be tolerated at our universities and that the bill would only protect and promote lawful free speech.

This is not helpful, as Holocaust denial remains legal in the UK. Her comments failed to clarify the seeming contradiction between the governments stated aim of cracking down on antisemitism on campuses, while also introducing a bill which could force universities to platform Holocaust deniers.

This row exemplifies the sort of lazy thinking that is so prevalent in the ongoing free-speech debate. If an exemption for denial is forthcoming, it actually raises more questions than it answers. Would there also be exemptions that allow for the no-platforming of race pseudo-scientists or pro-eugenics speakers? What about far-right or Islamist extremists whose speech does not reach the criminal threshold?

You cannot exempt one form of legal hate speech and not others otherwise what is the point of this bill? The government needs to either take an absolutist position on free speech, or accept that this is an extremely complex issue that requires much more rigorous thinking than has gone into this bill so far.

Similarly muddled thinking has gone into this issue in relation to the long-delayed, but very welcome, newdraft online safety bill, which was published by the government recently.

Oliver Dowden, secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, said inThe Telegraph: The last thing we want is for users or journalists to be silenced on the whims of a tech CEO or woke campaigners. This sounds all well and good, but what is a woke campaigner and who is classed as a journalist?

The crux of the issue is that free speech has become a battleground in an ongoing culture war. The result of this lazy opportunism is that the governments attempts to score points could unintentionally result in a defence of Holocaust deniers and far-right extremists.

The most recognisable far-right figure in the UK, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [aka Tommy Robinson], has long self-defined as a journalist, as does a far-right collective of so-called migrant hunters that film asylum seekers and migrants on the south coast. Will they be protected in a bill designed to reduce online harms?

The debate around the borders of free speech is an extremely complex one, with possibly huge ramifications if handled badly. The governments sloppy missteps of late are part of a wider laziness that pollutes this whole debate. It is extremely worrying that the politicised and reductionist arguments that have long been maliciously used by the far right to try to renormalise their prejudiced opinions are now being echoed by government ministers and legislation.

One of the major issues that many fail to grasp is the difference between our right to say what we want (a right we have) with the desire to say this wherever we choose. These are not the same thing and should not be confused. Nonetheless, the two continue to be conflated by those who oppose de-platforming online or no-platforming at universities.

Even more important is the myopic understanding of free speech that is so prevalent in these discussions. This current debate has no relationship to the quality or value of the speech people demand should be heard, when and where they demand. So many, including the government it seems, wrongly assume that diversity of opinion always leads to attainment of truth and that the correct argument will always win if debated.

It would be wonderful if true, but this optimism ignores the possibility that ill-informed opinions, or outright lies like Holocaust denial and race science, will flood the debate and that he who shouts the loudest will end up drowning out others. At worst, debates can become inundated with proven falsities, which risk legitimising topics that objectively are not legitimate. Just debating the Holocaust makes it a debate when it is not.

In addition, those condemning the supposed clampdown on free speech fundamentally underestimate the potential for social inequalities to be reflected in public debate, seemingly ignorant to the nature and extent of these inequalities in the marketplace of ideas.

As such, the position of these free speech advocates is paradoxical. They claim to be committed to valuing free speech above other values, while propagating an unequal debate that further undermines the free speech of those who are already harmed by social inequalities. What about the rights and free speech of Jewish students if their universities are forced to platform Holocaust deniers?

So much of this is based on the incorrect notion that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the truth will out. The Holocaust ended 76 years ago. It is one of the most documented historical events ever recorded, yet people still deny it. How will inviting deniers onto campuses help?

Those who argue for this position have yet to explain how nearly a century of sunlight on fascism and Holocaust denial has yet to disinfect them, and it begs the question how many more people have to die in terrorist attacks and genocides until someone finally manages to comprehensively debate them out of existence.

Free speech is a hugely important right that we must protect, but it is also a complex issue that demands serious thinking and nuance, not point scoring and slogans. The government needs to remember that before it introduces legislation that could seriously benefit far-right extremists.

Originally posted here:

Lazy Thinking in the Free Speech Debate Could Be Exploited by Extremists - Politics.co.uk

Clarifying Confusion in Greenwich on Illegal Signs and Protected Free Speech – Greenwich Free Press

Posted on by

On Memorial Day thousands of Greenwich residents woke up to find American Flags in front of their houses. Attached to the flags were 9 x 6 postcards explaining the flag was a gift from the Metalios Group, part of Houlihan Lawrence.

Instructions on the card said those who wanted the flag picked up the following weekend could scan the QR code on the card and either either email or call the Metalios Group to schedule a pickup.

A good many people were happy for the gift and didnt give it a second thought, but the towns Zoning Enforcement Officer Jodi Couture saw more than a free flag.

I would not consider a flag to be a sign, but once they put the flyer on it I would. I would say that these were a violation of the sign regulations.

The Town has strict rules about commercial signs, most notably house for sale signs. Mr. Couture has said that although many people are under the impression that real estate for sale signs are not allowed, it is permissible to post a three-ft square sign that simply says For Sale and a phone number.

However, once logos or company names are added, that is considered an advertisement and therefore a violation.

The Re-Imagine Greenwich committee has discussed hanging informational banners from the lamp posts on Greenwich Avenue, but stopped short of including sponsor names on the banners. Previously, there was some controversy in 2019 when the Think Greenwich PR campaign sold banners to businesses.

They noted that as soon as a sponsor name goes on the informational banner it is considered a commercial sign and not allowed. Instead that committee is considering distributing stickers to businesses to put in their store windows to indicate their sponsorship.

In the past few weeks there have been conversations and newspaper headlines about signs and free speech.

Signs saying Stand up Greenwich and Ban Critical Race Theory were installed anonymously and allowed by the Town to stay in place, though many have vanished.

It is worth noting that campaign signs are protected. The Town does not regulate election signage.

Also, non profit lawn signs are sometimes approved by the First Selectmans office. In those instances, the signs must be up no more than 15 days before an event, and be removed within 24 hours afterward. The Highway department has taken signs down in the past if they impede sight lines.

Mr. Couture has said that commercial signs are not permitted and will be removed if seen or reported.

Joy Metalios responded to a request for comment saying she had had received an overwhelming positive response to the American flags.

She pointed to a thread on Next Door about the flags that got 600 Likes and many messages of gratitude.

Metalios said that 2021 was the fifth year she has distributed flags, though she skipped 2020 due to the pandemic.

She said that over the years she had increased the flag distribution from 1,500 flags to 4,000 in response to positive feedback.

She added that every year her team gives a sizable donation to the non profit organization Homes for our Troops,' though she did not indicate the amount. According to their website, the mission of Homes for Our Troops is to build and donate specially adapted custom homes for severely injured post-9/11 Veterans.

While there were many messages of appreciation, others were offended.

Anne Eddy said, The flag was appreciated; the oversized postcard was not. Like many of us, I have a father, grandfather, aunts, uncles, and friends who fought or lost their lives in battle. They gave honorably, humbly and anonymously.

Tom McGarrity said he could absolutely see how people would appreciate the gesture of a gifted flag on Memorial Day.

Thats not the issue, he said. The issue is using Memorial Day to grow your business.

McGarrity said if the Metalios Group was truly being altruistic, they should not have attached their name to the flags and donated all proceeds they might make through home sales commissions to an appropriate cause for veterans.

It stretches credulity to think that the Metalios Group was not thinking about growing their business through this initiative, he said.

McGarrity said he complained to The Metalios Group after he spotted a flag and postcard in front of his house, writing to them, saying, I think it is completely inappropriate to use Memorial Daya day to commemorate our fallen soldiersas an advertising gimmick for your business. If you really wanted to be generous on this holiday, you would have made a donation without any recognition. Please come and remove the flag you put at our mailbox.

Metalios explained the reason the cards with the Metalios Group contact information was attached to the flags. She said two years ago she met withthe Riverside Association to discuss picking up the flags for those who did not know how to dispose of them.

There was also discussion about the flags starting to touch the ground over time, she said. We went around and picked up the flags, but then residents were displeased as theywanted to keep their flag. This is why this year we printed thecard to say out of respect for the flag, we would have a volunteer pick it up for them the following weekend if they wanted us to. It is not to get the homeowners information. We understand the significance of a fallen flag, so next year we will be sure to also add an additional note on the card: We ask that you please bring your flag inside so it does not fall on the ground, to ensure we honor and respect our American flag, soldiers, and country.'

Indeed, the US Dept of Veterans Affairs notes that Public Law 94-344, known as the Federal Flag Code, says, One should never let the flag touch anything beneath it: ground, floor, water, merchandise. Never fasten or display it in a way that will permit it to be damaged or soiled. Never use the flag for advertising or promotion purposes or print it on paper napkins, boxes or anything else intended for temporary use and discard.

Ms Metalios said she had added a logo to the post cards at the request of the Board of Realtors.

A few years back, we were notified by the Greenwich Board of Realtors that the card needed to have not only the name of my team but the name of my brokerage, which is why it is all on the card I preferred to keep it more low key.

On Friday, Mr. Couture, the towns Zoning Enforcement Officer, commented in an email saying, I would not consider a flag to be a sign, but once they put the flyer on it I would. I would say that these were a violation of the sign regulations.

Dean Gamanos, Vice Commander of American Legion Post 29, said veterans abide by the protocols for display of the American flag.

We should love our neighbors and always show respect for other people, Gamanos said. Our nationstands forthese time-honored principles. But we should also show respect for our flag, which is a symbol of our nation and its principles. Many men and women have fought and died for that symbol and what it stands for. We should respect the flag just as werespect other people and try to follow guidelines for its use.

Encouraging the display of our flags is of course commendable, but also creatinga situation which allows our flag to be littered about and used for commercial gain is abhorrent, Gamanos added.

Ms Metalios said that out of 4,000 flags, she only received two calls two calls from residents who felt the flag was used as an advertisement.

I have immense respect for those who serve orwho have served ourcountry, she said. My niece is a graduate of theNaval Academy and is presently a JAG officer and my husbands uncle is a retired Colonel.

I see it as a way to raise awareness for a good cause, she continued. It saddens me that they think it is a way to capture addresses. If we wanted their names and addresses, we would simply look at their tax cards. And as far as capturing emails, we only send emails to those who opt in toour newsletter.

See the article here:

Clarifying Confusion in Greenwich on Illegal Signs and Protected Free Speech - Greenwich Free Press

The World Loves Free SpeechExcept When They’re Offended – Reason

Posted on by

Freedom of expression wins strong endorsements around the world when people are asked, say researchers, so why have protections for speech consistently slipped for over a decade? Part of the problem is that many of those surveyed embrace a convenient attitude toward the issue: they support protections for speech of which they approve, but not of speech that offends them. Unfortunately, a right you're willing to extend only to yourself and your allies is no right at all and leaves freedom available only to those who wield power.

"Support for free speech is generally expressed by great majorities in all countries when people are asked their opinion," finds Who Cares About Free Speech?, a report recently published by Danish think tank Justitia, Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression, and Aarhus University's Department of Political Science. In February of this year, researchers surveyed an average of 1,500 respondents each in 33 countries to come up with that seemingly encouraging result. The devil is in the details, though.

"While citizens in most countries think that criticism of the government should be allowed, many people are unwilling to allow statements that are critical or insulting of particular groups, their religion, or the nation," the authors add. "Moreover, citizens do not always prioritize free speech when there is a potential trade-off with other things they value, such as national security, good health, and the economy."

Some of these exceptions are stark. Majorities in 14 countries say that governments should be able to prevent people from making "statements that are offensive to your religion and beliefs." Most of the countries on that list aren't a shock; is anybody surprised to discover that majorities in Egypt, Russia, and Turkey think that free speech protections shouldn't extend to criticism of their own ideas? But Brazil is on that list, too. And even Germans are divided, with 47 percent agreeing that governments should be able to muzzle expression they find offensive.

Germany is similarly divided when it comes to insults to the national flag, with 48 percent supporting government restrictionsthe same share as in Australia. But 56 percent in France agree, placing that country among the 21 countries where majorities say that governments should be able to prevent people from insulting the national symbol.

Germans and Australians, along with Britons, rank among the majorities in 22 countries who think that governments should be able to prevent people from saying things that are offensive to minorities. (Germany, by the way, is the birthplace of a new wave of Internet "hate speech" censorship laws sweeping the world.)

Majorities in Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, and Tunisia say that governments should be able to prevent people from making statements in support of homosexual relationships.

Majorities in 19 countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, say that government should be able to prevent media organizations from publishing information about "sensitive issues related to national security." Will we have to just take officialdom's word for it that suppressed articles were national security-related? The survey doesn't say.

Given the exceptions that many people carve out in their generic endorsement of free speech, and that "public opinion about free speech (popular demand) tends to go hand-in-hand with the actual enjoyment of this right (government supply)" according to the survey, the consequences are no surprise.

"Global freedom of expression is in decline, now at its lowest for a decade" according to the 2019/2020 report from Article 19, a British organization named after the portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addressing free speech protections. "More than half of the world's population around 3.9 billion people live in countries rated in crisis."

The slide has been accelerated by the worsening condition for liberty in countries with large populations, including Bangladesh, China, India, Russia, and Turkey.

People suffering creeping censorship may gain new appreciation for shrinking liberty. Among the top ranked countries in Justitia's Free Speech Index are Hungary and Venezuela. They rank well not because of their protections for citizens' rightsHungary has an elected but increasingly illiberal government while the totalitarianism of Venezuela's socialist regime is limited only by its decaying resourcesbut because their residents voice strong support in the survey for the freedoms they're losing.

Offering some comfort is that Americans are also highly ranked, at third place after only Norway and Denmark. Even on the contentious issue of social media, 29 percent of Americans say there should be no regulation, while 37 percent say any regulation should be done only by the social media companies themselves; only 34 percent want to government to play even a shared role in social media regulation.

On the other hand, 43 percent of Americans say their ability to speak freely about political matters in this country has worsened in the past 12 months, compared to 17 percent who think it has improved (40 percent say it is unchanged). That may foreshadow a long-term shift, since, as other researchers have found, younger Americans are less supportive of free speech. The consequences can be seen, in part, in the erosion of the ACLU as a civil liberties advocate, as younger staffers push it away from its traditional emphasis on freedom of expression.

Variance in support for free speech extends beyond age differences. "In the US, young people, women, the less educated, and Biden voters are generally more restrictive regarding free speech," notes Who Cares About Free Speech? That said, while the strength of support varies in the U.S., majorities of men and women alike, and across ages, education levels, and partisan affiliations, still favor free speech.

Free speech isn't the only quality of free societies eroding in recent years.

"[D]emocracy has not been in robust health for some time," The Economist's Democracy Index 2020 observed earlier this year. "In 2020 its strength was further tested by the outbreak of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic Across the world in 2020, citizens experienced the biggest rollback of individual freedoms ever undertaken by governments during peacetime (and perhaps even in wartime).

Other sources report similar erosion of liberal democratic norms, accelerated by government power-grabs during the pandemic. Now we can add free speech to the mix, with populations in some places skeptical of core protections for expression. Government officials surprise nobody when they reach for expanded power; defeating them and reasserting fundamental freedoms will be difficult without popular support.

Link:

The World Loves Free SpeechExcept When They're Offended - Reason

Law Students: Interested in Helping With Proofreading on the Journal of Free Speech Law? – Reason

Posted on by

Or new Journal of Free Speech Law is faculty-edited, but we'd love to have help from students with proofreading and bluebooking. (We may also need some help with cite-checking, though so far we're having faculty have their own research assistants do that.) We publish both electronically and in print, and our first articles should be out in late July.

I've lined up several UCLA law students for this, but I'd be glad to include others as well. In particular, we're going to need at least one person who can proofread an article in the next couple of weeks, and several who can help with our symposium articles (which are on regulations of social media platforms) in early July.

As you might gather from the job description, one thing we need is attention to detail. If your mind just absorbs information from written text, and doesn't bother you by alerting you to typos, then this will be a frustrating task for you. On the other hand, if errors just jump off the page at you as you read, you'd be perfect.

I realize that this is not like a normal law review: It will likely involve both less work and less responsibility. On the other hand, you'll get to read what we hope will be very interesting scholarship, participate in the process of publishing it (plus see your name in print on the masthead), and further practice your proofreading skills. If you're interested, please e-mail me atvolokh@law.ucla.edu. (Just to be clear, as with other law reviews, we're looking for volunteers, though we hope that the students who participate will find this professionally valuable.)

Continued here:

Law Students: Interested in Helping With Proofreading on the Journal of Free Speech Law? - Reason

View from the right: social media and their left-leaning leaders attack free speech – Norwich Bulletin

Posted on by

The allegation that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are conspiring to silence conservatisms leading voices and delegitimize conservative points of view is well-founded but not surprising. Long before the internet the political right was regularly de-platformed by the left-leaning titans of print and broadcasting,editorial boards and journalists consistently promoted Democrat politicians and progressive agendas. Long before people were logging on to get their news, almost every major network and newspaper could be counted on to either tear down conservative Republicans or ignore them.

So former President Donald Trumps recently decreed two-year ban from Facebook, added to his bans on Twitter and YouTube, are just overt reminders of that longstanding bias. What makes it especially painful, however, is that conservatives for a time thought the wilds of the internet might at last allow them to break free from elitist censorship. They didnt reckon on virtual monopolies being run by billionaire progressives.

Liberals, who in the not-so-distant past championed free speech (speaking truth to power) have now become enthusiastic supporters of censorship. While the ability to quash dissenting views is especially delicious for liberals when they are in power, as they are now, they have also mustered the timeless power of the mob to quell the opposition in all political seasons. The cancel culture is now the censorship tool of the left.

In every profession conservatives bite their tongues while inane wokeness is forced upon them, afraid that an unacceptable comment or post, or even supporting a conservative candidate, might cost them their careers. While the billionaire class parrots progressive notions and ignores communist oppression, thereby solidifying lucrative political connections, owners of small businesses dare not speak out about endemic crime in their communities in fear they will be targets of demonstrations or worse. My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, a vocal Trump supporter, is fighting to keep his company going because so many retailers have cancelled orders for his products. Those retailers live in fear of woke boycotts and so shy away from controversy. Being called a racist today is akin to being called a witch in the 1600s the louder the denial, the louder the calls for fire.

Lists of prominent persons who have been suspended or banned from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube reveal the anti-conservative bias, which gathered momentum before and after the 2020 election. That bias is bad enough when it kills controversial opinions, as when Fox News contributor Candace Owens was suspended from Facebook for criticizing Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmers draconian COVID lockdown orders. It is deadly when it kills legitimate scientific debate. Two examples of the latter are noteworthy.

Donald Trump Jr., son of the former president, had his Facebook account suspended in 2020 because he stated that Hydroxychloroquine could help patients recover from Covid-19. There is increasing evidence that the commonly used anti-inflammatory does in fact have a significant impact on the severity and duration of the disease if given early and in the proper dose, but the drug was demonized because President Trump was an early advocate. One virologist recently estimated it could have saved over a hundred thousand lives in the US.

Then there is the case of Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, banished after she published a link to a paper suggesting that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese government lab. We now know, through US intelligence and scientific sources, that a lab leak of a manipulated virus is a very likely scenario. Big Tech has big plans in China, and little reason to risk the ire of the Chinese communists by questioning their bat theory.

Why the unwillingness of the left to allow their agenda to compete in the marketplace of ideas? The answer is obvious their ideas are foolish at best (see New Monetary Theory) and at worst they are dangerous to the unity of the nation (see Critical Race Theory). The people who promote the progressive agenda know they must act fast before their illusions are revealed by the harsh light of reality. Their love of censorship is a sign of their own fears and the bankruptcy of their ideas.

Martin Fey is a member of the Quiet Corner Tea Party Patriots.

See the article here:

View from the right: social media and their left-leaning leaders attack free speech - Norwich Bulletin

Opinion: Canada needs a tough online hate speech law now – The Globe and Mail

Posted on by

In May, 2020, Frances National Assembly passed a bill aimed at regulating online hate speech but what passed into law just two months later looked nothing like the proposal the government had initially hoped to put in place.

The legislation ran into the same type of resistance that these efforts have been meeting from free-speech advocates around the world. In the case of France, however, the decisive blow was delivered by the courts.

Among other things, the French Constitutional Council struck down a provision that would oblige social-media companies to remove hate speech from their platforms within 24 hours of a complaint. The court found this to be a breach of the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

Story continues below advertisement

Because the government was planning to establish a serious financial penalty (up to $1.7-million) for any company that didnt take down the offensive content in the allotted time under the law, the court felt this might compel some platform operators to be risk-averse and take down material that was flagged as dangerous but ultimately didnt meet a hate-speech threshold. In other words, the threat of a fine would incite a form of self-censorship.

As a result, the legislation was defanged of many of its major consequences when it became law in July, 2020.

Now, Canadas federal government is making its own foray into this realm. Ottawa is expected to introduce hate-speech legislation before Parliament rises later this month. With an election widely expected in the fall, however, any new bill will likely die on the order paper. Meantime, groups on both sides of the hate speech-free speech debate will be able to hone their arguments for the day its reintroduced, should the Liberals get that opportunity down the road.

Canadians have bore witness to the dangers of online hate. It was a factor in the murder of six men at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, and in killings around the world, most notably the slaughter of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, two years ago. Those are some of the incidents that have garnered broad attention. But online hate is everywhere, comes in all forms and targets many different groups.

And its beyond time that we, as a country, did something about it.

That is not to say that anything about introducing laws to safeguard us from this evil is easy. (Though in theory, you would think it should be.) There are legitimate concerns that such laws could be so all-encompassing in scope they put excessive discretion in the hands of government, and before you know it, were talking a redux of George Orwells 1984.

But to the extent this might happen especially in the early days under a hypothetical new hate-speech regime it is worth it. Avoiding the matter until you come up with language that makes all sides happy would be folly. Who knows how many more men (and to a lesser extent women) will be radicalized online in the meantime. If other governments efforts are any indication, what matters is that the work begins now.

Story continues below advertisement

Indeed, the French had modelled much of their original online hate bill on what the Germans passed into law in 2018, amid great pushback from free-speechers. But Angela Merkels government prevailed. Now, any company that doesnt remove obviously illegal material within 24 hours can face a penalty of up to $73-million, proving that Germanys government is serious about cracking down on hate, no doubt motivated by the disturbing rise of far-right extremist groups in the country.

For his part, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has indicated that the legislation the federal government introduces will compel online operators to monitor and remove material deemed illegal in a timely manner or risk facing a fine. What timely manner means remains to be seen; the same goes for the type of penalty platform operators could face. But it has to be a number that means something.

The proliferation of those holding radical views shaped by a broader white nationalist movement should concern us all. It is a mortal danger to civil society and we must insist that any means by which these thoughts and ideas are being given broad exposure be brought under intense scrutiny and control.

It is no longer good enough to let social-media companies police themselves; thats clearly not working. Thats why governments need to step into the breach fraught as that may be.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Link:

Opinion: Canada needs a tough online hate speech law now - The Globe and Mail

Indian Government in Standoff with Twitter Over Online Speech – Voice of America

Posted on by

The government of IndianPrime MinisterNarendra Modiis in a battle withU.S.tech firms over a new set ofonlinespeech rulesthatit has enactedfor the nationofnearly1.4billion.

The rulesrequire companies to restrict a range of topicson theirservices,comply withgovernment takedown orders andidentifythe original source of informationshared.If the companiesfail tocomply, tech firm employees can be held criminally liable.

The escalation of tensions between Modis government and tech firms, activists say, could result inthecurtailmentof Indians online speech.

Absent a change in direction, the future of free speech in the worlds largest democracy is increasingly imperiled, said Samir Jain, director of policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a digital rights advocacy group.

Users will have less freedom of expression and less access to news and entertainment that is unapproved by the government. The rules will thereby undermine Indian democracy,Jain toldVOA.

At the center of the battle is Twitter, which asked for a three-month extensiontocomply withthenew IT rules that went into effect May 25.

On May 24, New Delhi policeattemptedto deliver a noticeto Twitters office, which was closedat the time,andthenreleased a video ofofficers entering the building and searching the officeson localTV channels.

In a tweetdays later, Twitter said itwas concerned by recent events regarding our employees in India and the potential threat to freedom of expression for the people we serve.

We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global terms of service, as well as with core elements of the new IT rules,thecompanysaid.

Earlier this month,the government sent a letter to Twitter sayingit was giving the companyone final notice adding that if Twitter fails to comply, there will be unintended consequences, according to NPR, which obtained the letter.

It is beyond belief that Twitter Inc.hasdoggedlyrefused to create mechanisms that will enable the people of India to resolve their issues on the platform in a timely and transparentmanner and through fair processes by India based clearly identified resources, the letter said.

The Indian government is pushing back on criticism that its new rules restrict online speech.

Protecting free speech in India is not the prerogative of only a private, for-profit, foreign entity like Twitter, but it is the commitment of the worlds largest democracy and its robust institutions, Indias Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said in a statement.

Some who are critical of the governments new IT rules are also skeptical of the tech industrys response.

It isnot an existential crisis as everyone will have us believe, saidMishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of Indias Software Freedom Law Center.Choudhary saiduserswill beforcedto stayon the sidelines, rather than taking an active role in discussions about their basic rights.

Some of the companies are still playing the game of we are a sales officeor our servers are in California, frustrating anyone who comes to their legitimate defense as well,Choudharysaid.

India has a long tradition of free speech,and itstech savvy market is attractive for U.S. tech firmslooking to expand.Although the Indian constitution protects certainrights tofreedom ofspeech,it has restrictions.Expressions are bannedthat threatenthe sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Even before the recent tensions between tech firms and the government, India was among the top nations in the worldseekingto restrict online speech.From Jan. 1, 2020,to June 1, 2020, India wasone ofthe top five countriesaskingTwitterto remove content.

For example, afterviolent protestson Jan. 26thinvolving farmersunhappy with new agricultural laws,the Modi government demandedTwitter block 500 accounts, includingthose ofjournalists,activistsand opposition leaders. Twitter didso, and then eventually reversedcourse only to receiveanoncompliancenotice,according to acompanystatement.

Several Indian journalistsfaced charges of sedition over their reporting and online posts following the protest by farmers.Among them is theexecutiveeditor of theCaravan magazine, Vinod K. Joseand although his Twitter handle iscurrently active, itwas withheld in India this year.

The government isalsoparticularly sensitive about criticism of its handling of the coronavirus, asking that social media firms remove mention of the B.1617 variant as the Indian variant. In May,the government ordered social media firms to remove any mention of the Indian variant. The variant first reported in India is now called Delta, according to the World Health Organization.

Earlier this month, Twittercomplied witha request from the government to block theTwitter account of Punjabi-born Jaswinder Singh Bains, aliasJazzyB, a rapper.While Twitter informed him that he had been blocked forreportedly violatingIndias Information Technology Act, he said he believes he was blocked for supporting the farmers in their protests, according to media reports.

JasonPielemeier,director of policy and strategy at theGlobal Network Initiative, an alliance of tech companies supporting freedom of expression online,wroteto the MeitY, calling attention to many issues with the new rules.

Each of these concerns on its own can negatively impact freedom of expression and privacy in India, he wrote. Together, they create significant risk of undermining digital rights and trust in Indias regulatory approach to the digital ecosystem.

Twitterisntthe only tech firm affected by new laws.WhatsApp,the encrypted messaging appowned by Facebook,filed a lawsuitin Mayagainst the Indian governmentarguing that the new rules allow for mass surveillance.According to the lawsuit,the new rules areillegal andseverely undermine the right to privacyof its users.

At issue forWhatsAppis that under the new rules, encryption would have to be removed, and according to The Guardian, messages would have to be in atraceabledatabase.

Go here to see the original:

Indian Government in Standoff with Twitter Over Online Speech - Voice of America

Free speech and the culture wars The Justice Gap – thejusticegap.com

Posted on by

The UK is ruled by a government that struggles with reality. Whether the consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland, the implications of a herd immunity policy for a coronavirus-type pandemic, or the result of building a coal mine in response to the climate emergency, Johnsons government is constitutionally incapable of making its rhetoric line up with the real world. But, while these other examples may be more harmful in the long-term, the most absurd example of this Conservative governments obtuseness might its inability to wrap its head around the universality of rights like freedom of speech.

When Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, discovered on Tuesday that Magdalen College Oxfords MCR the student body representing its graduate students had voted to take down a print of the Queen from their common room, his response was not to shrug and say that students can decorate their common spaces in any way they see fit. Instead, he tweeted an outraged statement, criticising the decision as absurd, and praising the Queen as a symbol of what is best about the UK.

For those of us aware that the Education Secretarys rants on freedom of speech are arrant nonsense, it is easy to dismiss him as a tragic joke, Frank Spencer from Some Mothers Do Have Em incarnated and elevated to an unjustifiably high office of state. The interior design choices of a student body even one at as illustrious an institution as Magdalen College should never spark a response from one of the most senior politicians in the UK. It is equally easy to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup, with right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and Daily Express splashing the controversy over their front pages in a desperate attempt to spark yet another battle in the culture war.

But we should not forget the more serious implications that such an attitude towards free speech, as well as towards other rights and liberties, can have, especially on those who are particularly vulnerable to abuses of state power, such as refugees and asylum seekers. One such group are those asylum seekers kept at Napier Barracks, which was controversially repurposed as accommodation for them by the Home Office last autumn.

Even though Public Health England warned the Home Office that the conditions would be unsafe given the pandemic, it forced refugees into overcrowded dormitories, with almost four hundred residents, at one point, living at the facility, while reports of inadequate food, hunger strikes, and substandard hygiene continued to leak out. For the Home Office to ever house refugees in overcrowded, unsanitary barracks is distressing. For it to choose to do so in the middle of a pandemic is callous and negligent.

Inevitably, the High Court ruled last week that housing migrants in such squalid conditions was irrational, and that the Home Office had unlawfully failed to ensure a standard of living which was adequate for the health of the claimants. But despite this criticism from the Court, the Home Office has simply interfered further with the residents rights, with its contractors allegedly forbidding them from speaking to the media about living conditions in the barracks, and warning them that if they do so, it may harm their chances of being granted asylum.

It is a tragic irony that as the UK is welcoming Hong-Kongers to its shores, offering visas to those at risk of persecution from the Chinese government for speaking out against Xi Jinpings authoritarian regime, it is simultaneously attacking the freedom of speech of those hailing from less desirable countries. If freedom of speech means anything, it must include the right to criticise the government even if it is the government that you are simultaneously asking to grant you refuge.

More harmful, however, than this petty intimidation of refugees many of who, given their precarious position, will be deterred from speaking about their living conditions is the refusal of the government to effectively engage with the decision of the High Court. Rather than admitting the barracks are unfit for purpose, closing them, and rehousing the refugees and asylum seekers in safe accommodation, the Home Office has continued to use the barracks with little apparent improvement in conditions. Minnie Rahman, campaigns director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants told the Financial Times yesterday that residents are still being housed in dorms of 14contravening public health advice, and that sanitation at the camp remains poor.

Nor does the reaction of Priti Patel in the House of Commons earlier this week suggest that this situation is likely to improve. Addressing the chamber, she refused to apologise for re-purposing the barracks in the face of warnings from PHE, and instead implicitly suggested that the asylum seekers should be grateful for what they received, giving accommodation to people who otherwise would have been sleeping in dirty makeshift tents in France and other European countries.

Setting aside the inexplicable, yet inevitable, British exceptionalism in her statement, rights are not contingent on a persons past living conditions, nor are they contingent on what passes muster in other nations. The Home Office had an ethical and more importantly now has a legal obligation to remedy the living conditions. Instead, the Home Secretary is doggedly denying the only rational conclusion, which is that the barracks must be closed, and is instead trying to shift the narrative through criticising the media for glamourising migrants crossing the Channel and encouraging the police to get back to zapping criminals.

Rights and liberties are universal. Just as a college MCR is free to put up a picture of the Queen for any reason, so it is equally free to take it down. The fact that some may view their reasons as feeble in Magdalen MCRs case, because the Queen is apparently a symbol of colonial oppression does not justify the government wading into student politics, or mean that senior fellows at the college should be required to profess loyalty to the monarch. And much as students at the University of Oxford have the right to speak out against the Queen, or the institution of monarchy, or the government, so too do asylum seekers, even as they seek refuge on British shores from persecution and oppression in their mother country. Indeed, it is because of freedoms like this that refugees risk life and limb to find safe harbour in the UK. If the government had any decency, it would celebrate such freedoms. Instead, it degrades them.

Read the original here:

Free speech and the culture wars The Justice Gap - thejusticegap.com

Editorial: Against For the People: Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed – Yahoo News

Posted on by

The name, the For the People Act, has an elegant simplicity. The number, HR 1, does too. Democrats call it a first-aid kit for a republic where big money, gerrymandering and voter intimidation have the body politic on life support.

It is that, in part. But some of the medicine packed in this gargantuan legislation will undercut Americas foundational freedoms. And that is why we do not lament the bills demise at the hands of Joe Manchin, who has said he cannot support an effort to kill the filibuster to push it and other bills through the Senate.

HR 1 does some very good things. It would create automatic voter registration, restore federal Voting Rights Act protections, override state voter suppression efforts, attack corrosive gerrymandering, and fix some flawed federal ethics rule. Normally, it would be worth holding ones nose about the bad parts to win passage of such provisions. Here, though, the bad parts are utterly unacceptable.

To stop dark money from infecting elections, the bill would dramatically expand regulation of speech, requiring disclosure of the names and addresses of donors who give $10,000 or more to groups engaging in campaign-related disbursements. That means that any organization whether dedicated to environmental protection, abortion rights, racial justice, public education, you name it would have to list its big donors any time it runs any ad praising or criticizing a candidate or elected official.

As American Civil Liberties Union lawyers have written, We know from history that people engaged in politically charged issues become political targets and are often subject to threats of harassment or even violence. The effect would be tying the tongues of advocacy organizations on matters of vital importance.

Meanwhile, the bill would broaden existing prohibitions on paid advocacy on foreign nationals that would prohibit many noncitizens from taking part in broader civic life. (While money isnt the same as speech, without money, speech often fails to influence public debate.) Thats almost surely unconstitutional. It is certainly wrong.

Read the original:

Editorial: Against For the People: Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed - Yahoo News

Opinion/Owens: Making the case against ‘critical race theory’ – The Providence Journal

Posted on by

Mackubin Owens| Guest columnist

Mackubin Owens, of Newport, a monthly contributor, is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.

The latest battlefield in Americas culture war is critical race theory,a pernicious and reactionary theory that, until recently, was confined to academia. No longer. CRT now infects most U.S. institutions,corporations and the government, including the military.

CRT can be traced to Karl Marx and his epigones, manifesting itself first as critical theory, a Marxist philosophical framework that rejects the validity of concepts such as rationality and objective truth. It posits two categories: oppressed and oppressors. In Marxs original formulations, the lens was economic class. The bourgeoisie was the oppressor class and the proletariat were the oppressed. CRT substitutes race for class. According to CRT, the entire system of a society is defined by those who have power (whites) and those who dont (people of color).

Several states have now sought to ban the teaching of CRT. In response, CRTs advocates make three arguments: first, CRT issimply a benign academic theorysupporting the latest stage in the struggle for equal civil rights; second, banning the teaching of CRT is an assault on free speech; and third, opposing CRT is an attempt to whitewash American history.

Regarding the first, CRT is fundamentally at odds with the principles that underpinned all advances in the rights of Black Americans, from the Civil War constitutional amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:that all Americans should be treated equally, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. These are philosophically linked to the Declaration of Independence, which holdsthat human beings are equal in their possession of natural rights and that, accordingly, no one has the natural right to rule over another without the latters consent.

But CRT attacks the American Founding. Advocates of CRT do not wish to fulfill the promises of the American Founding, which they regard as racist. Instead, they want to replace the principles of the Founding with something radically different, for instance, replacing such concepts as equality with equity and subverting the meaning of justice.

Regarding free speech, CRTemploys a rhetorical tool developed by the neo-Marxist philosopherHebert Marcuse: repressive tolerance. According to Marcuse, totolerate all ideas the essence of reasonable discourse that traditionally has defined the mission of education is, in fact, repressive, since it does not privilege the correct ideas. True tolerance, Marcuse argued, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

Adopting Marcuses logic, CRTbrooks no dissent. To argue against CRT is itself fundamentally racist,evidence of the dissenters white fragility, unconscious bias, or internalized white supremacy.Thus rather offering a perspective that invites debate, CRT education is essentially ideological indoctrination.

Finally, opponents of CRT do not want to whitewash American history. But perspective matters. Slavery is Americas original sin, but when the United States was founded in 1776, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. Americas Founding principles made the abolition of slavery a moral imperative. Jim Crow was indeed a terrible stain on America, especially as it was nationalized by Progressives such as President Woodrow Wilson. The Tulsa Massacre must never be forgotten.

But CRT ignores what Frederick Douglass said of President Abraham Lincoln: Most Americans of all races have risen above their prejudices, striving to bring American practice into accord with American principles regarding justice.

CRT demeans African Americans by stripping them of all agency, treating them as simply inanimate objects, helpless victims of impersonal forces. It also essentially absolves politicians of bad policy.

But in the end, CRT is nothing more than a return to 1850s-style racism as espoused by John Calhoun and Chief Justice Roger Taney in his infamous Dred Scott decision. It is divisive; it fosters racial hatred by trafficking in racial stereotypes, collective guilt, racial segregationand race-based harassment. It rejects Martin Luther Kings hope that we should be judged, not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

Follow this link:

Opinion/Owens: Making the case against 'critical race theory' - The Providence Journal

Worcesters Abby Kelley Foster to be honored with lighted lectern sculpture created by two artists – MassLive.com

Posted on by

Two artists have been selected to honor Worcester icon Abby Kelley Foster and are creating a lighted lectern sculpture that will be placed downtown, Worcester city officials said.

Ann Hirsch and Jeremy Angier have been selected by the Public Art Working Group to complete the citys Abby Kelley Foster Artistic Node Project, officials said in a statement issued Tuesday.

Kelley Foster was a Worcester resident who served as a prominent leader in the abolitionist and womens rights movement in the 19th century, defending free speech and advocating for equality and the abolishment of slavery.

She fought abuse to exercise the right to use her voice in order to bring about revolutionary cultural change, said Hirsch. Kelley Foster teaches us that the struggle for equal rights far outweighs personal costs, and her fearlessness and dedication should inspire us all, whichever cause we hold closest to our hearts.

The sculpture will feature a perforated lectern in metal, illuminated from below and engraved with text taken from Kelley Fosters records that highlights using ones voice for social change amidst adversity. It will be at the corner of Main and Walnut streets and is planned for public activation in October, the statement said.

Hirsch said the sculpture will serve as a potent symbol of Kelley Fosters story, and will bring us closer to the woman who, in Lucy Stones words, earned for us all the right of free speech.

Last year, the city issued a call to artists for the Abby Kelley Foster Artistic Node Project, looking for an art installation recognizing Kelley Foster, the Womens Rights Movement, or Revolution as potential themes. The location of the installation area was the site of the first National Womens Rights Convention in 1850.

Between its location and its long history with activism, Worcester was the site of the first two National Womens Rights Conventions in 1850 and 1851, and Worcester County was home to many suffragists, said Erin Williams, the citys cultural development officer. Abby Kelley Foster was one of these suffragists and abolitionists. Completion of this project will honor her and the courageous women who led the way for social justice, and encourage those who see it to learn more about the woman, the womens rights movement, and Worcesters history.

The project is part of the Main Street Reimagined Initiative, which aims to improve the existing streetscapes and activate public spaces through art installations.

By tapping into the creativity and passion of artists, we are able to celebrate, honor, and share our history in ways outside textbooks and museums publicly, free of charge, and accessible to all who will pass by the area, said Worcester City Manager Edward M. Augustus Jr. Im looking forward to seeing the Abby Kelley Foster project once it is completed, and to similar upcoming initiatives.

Related Content:

Read more:

Worcesters Abby Kelley Foster to be honored with lighted lectern sculpture created by two artists - MassLive.com

Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed – Grand Haven Tribune

Posted on by

The name, the For the People Act, has an elegant simplicity. The number, HR 1, does, too. Democrats call it a first-aid kit for a republic where big money, gerrymandering and voter intimidation have the body politic on life support.

It is that, in part. But some of the medicine packed in this gargantuan legislation will undercut Americas foundational freedoms. And that is why we do not lament the bills demise at the hands of Joe Manchin, who has said he cannot support an effort to kill the filibuster to push it and other bills through the Senate.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAmw# ` 5@6D D@>6 G6CJ 8@@5 E9:?8D] xE H@F=5 4C62E6 2FE@>2E:4 G@E6C C68:DEC2E:@?[ C6DE@C6 7656C2= '@E:?8 #:89ED p4E AC@E64E:@?D[ @G6CC:56 DE2E6 G@E6C DFAAC6DD:@? 677@CED[ 2EE24< 4@CC@D:G6 86CCJ>2?56C:?8[ 2?5 7:I D@>6 7=2H65 7656C2= 6E9:4D CF=6] }@C>2==J[ :E H@F=5 36 H@CE9 9@=5:?8 @?6D ?@D6 23@FE E96 325 A2CED E@ H:? A2DD286 @7 DF49 AC@G:D:@?D] w6C6[ E9@F89[ E96 325 A2CED 2C6 FEE6C=J F?2446AE23=6]k^Am

kAm%@ DE@A 52C< >@?6J 7C@> :?764E:?8 6=64E:@?D[ E96 3:== H@F=5 5C2>2E:42==J 6IA2?5 C68F=2E:@? @7 DA6649[ C6BF:C:?8 5:D4=@DFC6 @7 E96 ?2>6D 2?5 255C6DD6D @7 5@?@CD H9@ 8:G6 S`_[___ @C >@C6 E@ 8C@FAD 6?828:?8 😕 42>A2:8?C6=2E65 5:D3FCD6>6?ED] %92E >62?D E92E 2?J @C82?:K2E:@? H96E96C 565:42E65 E@ 6?G:C@?>6?E2= AC@E64E:@?[ 23@CE:@? C:89ED[ C24:2= ;FDE:46[ AF3=:4 65F42E:@?[ J@F ?2>6 :E H@F=5 92G6 E@ =:DE :ED 3:8 5@?@CD 2?J E:>6 :E CF?D 2?J 25 AC2:D:?8 @C 4C:E:4:K:?8 2 42?5:52E6 @C 6=64E65 @77:4:2=]k^Am

kAmpD p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? =2HJ6CD 92G6 HC:EE6?[ (6 9:DE@CJ E92E A6@A=6 6?82865 😕 A@=:E:42==J 492C865 :DDF6D 364@>6 A@=:E:42= E2C86ED 2?5 2C6 @7E6? DF3;64E E@ E9C62ED @7 92C2DD>6?E @C 6G6? G:@=6?46] %96 67764E H@F=5 36 EJ:?8 E96 E@?8F6D @7 25G@424J @C82?:K2E:@?D @? >2EE6CD @7 G:E2= :>A@CE2?46]k^Am

kAm|62?H9:=6[ E96 3:== H@F=5 3C@256? 6I:DE:?8 AC@9:3:E:@?D @? A2:5 25G@424J @? 7@C6:8? ?2E:@?2=D E92E H@F=5 AC@9:3:E >2?J ?@?4:E:K6?D 7C@> E2<:?8 A2CE :? 3C@256C 4:G:4 =:76] W(9:=6 >@?6J :D?E E96 D2>6 2D DA6649[ H:E9@FE >@?6J[ DA6649 @7E6? 72:=D E@ :?7=F6?46 AF3=:4 5632E6]X %92ED 2=>@DE DFC6=J F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2=] xE 😀 46CE2:?=J HC@?8]k^Am

kAmkDEC@?8m}6H *@C< s2:=J }6HD W%}$Xk^DEC@?8mk^Am

See original here:

Free speech is the most important right and cannot be curbed - Grand Haven Tribune

Mass GOP cancels fundraiser with Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw over threat of protests – Boston Herald

Posted on by

A Fathers Day gathering in Andover featuring Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw has been called off due to planned protests, the Massachusetts GOP said.

These protests would have caused a major disturbance in my neighborhood, and I do not want my guests, my neighbors, or Congressman Crenshaw to be subjected to a chaotic and potentially volatile situation, said party Chairman Jim Lyons, who planned to host the gathering as his home. While the event is now canceled, we are nonetheless committed to hosting Congressman Crenshaw at some point in the future.

The fight against censorship, cancel culture, and the far-lefts obsession with silencing anyone who dares to express their right to free speech and free expression continues, Lyons said in a statement. The threat is real.

Crenshaw, 37, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in Afghanistan, has called for Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting womens right to abortion, to be overturned.

He also has called for conservatives to work for stricter election laws at the state level.

Excerpt from:

Mass GOP cancels fundraiser with Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw over threat of protests - Boston Herald