Monthly Archives: September 2020

With only one day left for student feedback, the Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement is nearing finalization.

The statement, which passed through multiple drafting and review phases before hitting students inboxes, lays out the institutions commitment to protecting and setting necessary boundaries around the freedom of communication within the Goshen College community.

The writing process began in the spring of 2020, when President Rebecca Stoltzfus asked LaKendra Hardware, director for diversity, equity and inclusion, and Jodi Beyeler, vice president for communication and people strategy, to draft a statement that would regulate campus norms and provide a groundwork for existing and new policies.

The statement is not a direct response to the hate speech incident that took place on campus around the same time last spring, said Hardware, but incidents like that one make it clear that articulating ground rules for communication on campus is important.

This is an opportunity for us to look at our campus and say, how can we ensure that all persons feel protected, but also empowered to stand in their freedom to speak and to express themselves, Hardware said.

The deadline for student feedback on the statement is this Friday, Sept. 18, and Hardware encourages as many students as possible to participate by responding with comments and questions.

Julia Schiavone Camacho, associate professor of history, offered her perspective on the importance of the first-amendment right of freedom of speech.

In United States history, freedom of expression has been closely linked to religious freedom, and the value placed on these freedoms have set us apart (as a nation), she said.

Schiavone Camacho believes dialogue between diverse people is crucial in institutions of higher education, like Goshen College.

In a healthy society, ideas, intellectual curiosity and debate flourish, she said.

The Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement encourages students, faculty and staff to act according to the principle that the best response to ideas that they find offensive is more speech, not censorship.

But it also clarifies that Freedom of speech and expression does not protect speech or behavior against individuals or groups that is discriminatory, slanderous, threatening, intimidating, harassing or incites violence.

Hardware understands that finding a balance between protecting free speech and setting boundaries to avoid harm is of utmost importance.

There is a time and place when freedom of speech can become problematic, she said.

Nathan Pauls, a senior communication and art double major, remembers a time he experienced conflicting ideas on the Goshen College campus.

His first year at GC, a disagreement broke out on his floor over politics and values. He remembers that the situation led to some tension and white-board writing that turned nasty.

When underlying trends of discrimination and oppression are added to the mix, there is potential for things to get even nastier, Hardware explained.

She used an example to illustrate this idea.

I can tell you, she begins, that I dont like your shirt. Its my freedom of speech [to say that]. But lets say, your shirt was your identity, and I said, I hate your shirt because your shirt is trash. Your shirt has always been trash. And lets say that that argument has been used historically for folks who have your shirt as their identity. So now Im not just attacking you, Im attacking you on the history of what has been said and done in the past. Im articulating it as freedom of speech, but its problematic because of the historical connection to the terrorization of others in that way.

I think the time and climate were living in calls for people to think about [language], Hardware said, Whether its political, whether its around racial or ethnic identity, whether its around sex or gender identity.

Mindfulness around language is what the Freedom of Speech and Expression statement is meant to encourage.

The final version of the statement will be re-presented to the campus community and adopted once student feedback is reviewed and final revisions made.

Continue reading here:
New Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement released - The Record

Opinion: The right to free speech doesn't include hate speech The Appalachian

#content .sharing-icon {border-radius: 5px;margin-right: 5px;margin-bottom: 5px;width: 30px;}.innerbackgroundwrap, #fullwrap { background-color: #ffffff}h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 500; }a, a:visited, a h3, h3 a, .widgetheadline a, a .widgetheadline { color: #ffcc00; }a:hover, a:hover h3, a:hover .widgetheadline, h3 a:hover, .widgetheadline a:hover { color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: underline; }a h3.homeheadline, a.homeheadline, a.headline, #content h1 a, .widgetheadline .headline, .storyheadline a, .searchheadline, h2.searchheadline, h2.searchheadline a, h2.catprofile a, #searchapge h2, #catpage h2, .maingridheadline, .homeheadline { color: #000000 !important; font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }.topboxsmallwide h3, topboxsmall h3, .desc h3, .relatedtitle {font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }a:hover h3.homeheadline { color: #000000 !important; text-decoration:underline !important; }#homepagefull h3.gridfallback, .bottom-row-blocks h3, .top-row-blocks h3 { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }.storyheadline { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }#storypage h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center !important;}#storyrails h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center;}#classic_story h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center !important;}.innerbackgroundwrap { background: #fff !important; }.sno-search-close{color: #fff; background: #ffcc00; }#sno_teaserbar { top: -80px; }.sno_teaserbar #stb-container { background: #fff !important; }.sno_teaserbar_home #stb-container { background: #fff !important; }.sno_teaserbar .stb_left:hover, .sno_teaserbar .stb_right:hover { color: #023597; }.sno_teaserbar_home .stb_left:hover, .sno_teaserbar_home .stb_right:hover { color: #023597; }.photo-container, .caption-container, .slideshow-caption-container a, .caption-container a { color: #fff !important; }.remodal-story-image, .remodal-story-image .flexslider, #sfi-email { background: #000 !important; }#sfi-email {border: 1px solid #fff; }#sfi_submit_email, #sfi_cancel_email { color: #000; }.sfi-title a, .sfi-title a:hover { color: #fff; }.sfi-title a:hover { border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.sfi-right:hover, .sfi-left:hover { color: #ffcc00;}@media only screen and (min-width: 1100px) and (max-width: 1199px) {#classic_story #contentleft p { font-size:17px; line-height:27px; }}#storyrails #content { margin: 0 auto; }@media only screen and (min-width: 1100px) {.full-width .postarea { width: 900px;}}

Ella AdamsSeptember 12, 2020|262 Views

The extent of free speech is a debate happening across the country with the focus on hate speech. Hate speech is discriminatory speech, writing or behaviour that attacks religion, race, gender, sexuality and other factors of identity. With the rise of political polarization and an increased spotlight on social issues, people are quick to police each others language. This debate over the First Amendment is happening among students and administrators in Boone. People are not afraid to express their opinions and American universities have cautiously navigated free speech on campus, balancing between too much restriction and not enough. So where should we draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

It is App States responsibility to ensure students have a voice on campus. But, App State must ensure students feel accepted. Students have the right to express their beliefs, however, the line is crossed when free speech infringes on another students right to feel safe on campus.

A student reported to Black at App State an incident in which they and eight of their friends were verbally harassed by two white fellow students shouting racial slurs at them on campus. The student says in the Instagram post, I realized how unprotected Black students were in this community. It is unclear if the incident was reported to the university. But regardless of if incidents are reported to administration, fighting hate speech begins with App State students. Hate speech should not be accepted on App States campus. Free speech is a pillar of American ideals but shouldnt be used to alienate and harass fellow citizens in the name of freedom.

Americans are familiar with the First Amendment: Congress cannot make any law restricting freedom of speech, religion, the press etc. But, the First Amendment does not give Americans the right to say whatever they want: there are restrictions. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech because it falsely expresses clear and present danger. Additionally, reasonable threats against another person are not protected. Unregulated hate speech normalizes prejudice therefore, it is extremely dangerous. For example, the United States is currently experiencing a spike in hate crimes the highest numbers in 16 years. Hate speech encourages discrimination so App State is in its right to take action against students who use it.

Free speech is important on college campuses, but students freedom to exist on campus hate and harassment free is far more important.

See more here:
Opinion: The right to free speech doesn't include hate speech - The Appalachian Online

September 16, 2020 | :

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education issued its final rule on religious liberty and free inquiry, which details protections for faith-based institutions and religious student groups at public universities and seeks to bolster campus free speech.

The rule reflects and sometimes contradicts a fraught, growing body of case law about religion and free speech in higher education.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

The final rule, which came after 17,000 public comments, requires universities to give equal treatment to religious student groups, which means equal access to university facilities, recognition and funding from student fees, among other things. The rule also defines what it means to be a religious higher education institution so that these schools can continue to be officially exempted from adhering to Title IX where it conflicts with a religious creed. Plus, it reaffirms that these institutions can benefit from department grant programs, so long as the funding isnt going to religious instruction, worship or proselytization.

Meanwhile, if a public university violates the First Amendment, thats grounds for the department to withhold federal cash, but only if the university receives a judgement against it in a state or federal court. Private universities can face the same repercussions if they violate their own institutional policies on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

This administration is committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions, said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in a statement. Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.

To Dr. Martha McCarthy, presidential professor of educational leadership at Loyola Marymount University, the new rule falls in line with the recent trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, at least in terms of ensuring government funding can go to religious institutions.

She cited Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which ruled in favor of a church pre-school receiving federal grant money in 2017, and the 2020 case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which sided with parents who wanted to use Montana state government scholarships to send their children to religious schools.

These decisions make the clause separating church and state somewhat second-tier or maybe even impotent, she said. The new regulations conform in spirit with where the court seems to be going.

But the rule also conflicts with the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, said Dr. Charles J. Russo, a research professor of law and Joseph Panzer Chair in Education at University of Dayton.

In 2010, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that allowed the University of California at Hastingss law school to deny recognition to a chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The student group wanted an exemption from the universitys non-discrimination policy on the basis that their umbrella organizations statement of faith prohibited sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

Thats why Russo foresees legal conflict over the new rule.

Im pretty convinced that someone will bring a lawsuit challenging it, he said. I would just about bet that somebody will challenge this.

He personally likes the rule as a basic protective measure for religious student groups. For example, he cited another case, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, in which the university wouldnt allow a religious student group to publish its newsletter using funding from a student activities fund in 1995. Here, the Supreme Court decided, in favor of the students, that this was viewpoint discrimination.

But regardless, the rule feels like a possible landmine to challenge Supreme Court precedent. Whether one agrees with the Christian Legal Society, the case in California, or disagrees, this certainly overturns it, he added. And I dont think the Department of Education has the authority to do that.

McCarthy predicts another kind of legal challenge. The final rule requires private institutions to follow their own self-determined guidelines on First Amendment rights and doesnt require them to have anti-discrimination policies. That means if, for example, LGBTQ students were barred from a religious student club at a private university, faith-based or otherwise, the institution would still be in full compliance with the rule.

In her interpretation, if [private colleges] have institutional policies that allow discrimination, thats what theyd be judged on, she said. That, to me, does not seem appropriate.

Meanwhile, public universities find themselves in a very difficult position with the impending threat to federal funding, according to Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) President Peter McPherson.

Freedom of speech on campus is an area of continuing difficulty [and] conflict within the law, he said, and different circuit courts interpret Supreme Court decisions on it differently. He thinks the fear of losing education department grants will force public universities to do one of two things: immediately fold to whoever files a free speech lawsuit against them or pour resources into fighting them because the financial stakes of losing a case are too high.

As a former president of Michigan State University, he thinks First Amendment rights are taken very seriously at public universities, he added, and he sees open and free speech as one of their core values. But putting their federal funding on the line shifts the scale of justice.

Granted, government putting requirements on funding is a common deterrent to encourage compliance to regulations, said Russo. But if the department actually withdrew a universitys federal funding over First Amendment litigation, that would be new.

The ultimate hammer that the feds have against a state, against a school, against an institution is that we can stop funding you if you dont get in line and follow this rule, he said. Im not aware of any case where thats actually happened. [Universities are] going to go to court before they let that happen. I dont think universities are going to roll over and play dead. I think theyre going to question the motivation of the federal government and its action.

Sara Weissman can be reached at sweissman@diverseeducation.com.

View original post here:
What Does the Education Department's New Final Rule Mean For... - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: September 14, 2020 5:28:59 pmJustice Madan B Lokur. (File Photo)

Questioning the intent behind invoking provisions of the stringent National Security Act (NSA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against students and civil society members, former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur Monday said the Centre is using an iron hand to curb free speech.

Addressing a virtual discussion on the Freedom of speech and judiciary, in the context of lawyer Prashant Bhushan depositing a fine of Re 1 in a contempt of court case, he was quoted by Live Law as saying, State is using an iron hand to curb free speech. Suddenly you have a lot of cases charging people with sedition. Common citizen who say something are charged with sedition. Already 70 cases of sedition this year.

Citing the example of Dr Kafeel Khan, who was recently released from jail after the Allahabad High Court quashed his charges under the NSA, Justice Lokur said his speech at a protest against the new Citizenship Act was misread. The Court said his speech was promoting national integration and unity, he added.

Justice Lokur said another method by which the State curbs free speech is by crackdown on critical opinions by charging as spreading fake news. He cited examples of journalists reporting about Covid-19 cases, lack of ventilators etc. with fake news provisions.

Another method is the misreading of the statements to attribute motives. This happened in the case of Prashant Bhushan, Justice M B Lokur says. I believe he had no intention to break the judiciary. But his statements were misread, Justice Lokur said.

He further said students and activists are put under jails by misreading their dissenting voices to invoke UAPA against them.

The former SC judge expressed concern about preventive detention being used rampantly. On the other hand, you have people who talk about violence, about breaking up things nothing happens to them.

Noting that over 3 crore cases are pending before the courts, Justice Lokur also said that the judiciary needs to prioritize its concerns and there is a need to increase transparency within the judiciary.

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

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

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

See the original post here:
State using sedition as iron hand to curb free speech: Justice Lokur - The Indian Express

Conservative radio host Dan Bongino has acquired an equity stake in the online video-sharing platform Rumble as a challenge to YouTube in the free speech arena.

"We need a home," Bongino exclusively told the Washington Examiner. "We need somewhere to go where conservative views won't be discriminated against." Bongino with over half a million subscribers on YouTube cites 80 percent of his daily episodes on The Dan Bongino Show have been demonetized for its conservative content. "I'm sick of it, and I wanted to do something about it."

On Monday, Bongino plans on airing The Dan Bongino Show in an exclusive window daily on Rumble before sharing to his YouTube channel.

The Dan Bongino Show is ranked the 12th most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts, podcastinsights.com lists.

According to Rumble's website, the streaming service "provides video creators a way host, manage, distribute, create [over-the-top] feeds and monetize their content."

"YouTube is crushing conservative voices. I'm not going to sit around and take their bullsh*t anymore," Bongino tweeted ahead of the announcement on Wednesday. "They think alienating & discriminating against major content producers is a long-term business plan. Its not. Ill have a big announcement about this fight on my show tomorrow."

Backing words with action is in Bongino's playbook. This endeavor follows the successful launch of The Bongino Report, a steadfast alternative to The Drudge Report's now-liberal leaning news aggregator.

Bonginos investment in Rumble further characterises his trend of backing Big Tech alternatives. In June, the conservative media head partnered with Parler to fire back at censorship on Twitter.

In the competitive social media market, Bongino has been champion of independent underdogs, using his loyal base to drive traffic away from the mainstream and towards dark horse mediums circulating new ideas and free thought.

"Ive decided its time to fight back against the Tech Tyrants. Im beyond fed up with the censorship and bias of Twitter and Facebook and Im not going to stand back and watch as they target us," Bongino wrote at the time.

More here:
Dan Bongino becomes part-owner of Rumble, a free-speech friendly alternative to YouTube - The Post Millennial

"Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is."

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. It allows each person to express their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal. What doesnt it do? Protect us from having another person call our ideas garbage! (If a group, corporation or government did so, that might be considered censorship another story).

So, loosely in response in to Kelly Kerrs Aug. 12 letter, No one deserves to be personally attacked for writing an opinion, I agree with the statement of avoiding personal attacks when writing or responding to a letter. However, in regards to mask-wearing, a lot of people who may be fine, upstanding citizens otherwise have very dumb opinions!

Dumb opinions are open to being called out at any time, but are especially vulnerable when it comes to this respiratory pandemic. Almost everyone can wear a mask to no ill effect. Oxygen levels dont deplete. You dont re-inhale carbon dioxide. Its not an affront to human rights.

Compare two other well-known failsafes in our society: vaccines and seatbelts. There is an extremely small number of people who really, really, really cannot have a vaccine. So the rest of us vaccinate to help give that person protection they wouldnt otherwise have. There is, however an increasing number of people who refuse to vaccinate, even though they can do so safely. This behaviour should be pointed out for the reckless one that it is! Compare it to seatbelts. Would any of us accept the argument: I dont need to wear a seatbelt ... I know better. My Body, My Choice!? Well, it sounds silly doesnt it? If a person crashes their car, flies out of the seat, and that car continues on to run someone else over, it was only their body now, was it?

To compare to vaccination, there is an infinitesimally small number of people who shouldnt be forced to wear a mask, even though it probably wouldnt hurt. However, there is, again, that increasing number of people who are sheep to use their own words against them and believe any content they read online, and think they shouldnt wear a mask. Who are the sheep? The ones who read, and parrot word for word, alternative slop from crummy, easily-debunked websites, or the ones who understand and respect science?

Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is. May freedom of speech persist!

Damon Davies, St. Albert

Read more here:
LETTER: Free speech means freedom to call out bad opinions - St. Albert Today

from the not-great,-bob dept

As was rumored late last week, the White House is, in fact, nominating Nathan Simington to the FCC, taking over the seat of of Mike O'Riely, whose nomination was withdrawn just days after O'Rielly expressed his strong support for the 1st Amendment and made it clear what he thought of idiots calling for the government to force websites to host content:

The First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the governmentnot private actorsand we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendments protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making. I shudder to think of a day in which the Fairness Doctrine could be reincarnated for the Internet, especially at the ironic behest of so-called free speech defenders. It is time to stop allowing purveyors of First Amendment gibberish to claim they support more speech, when their actions make clear that they would actually curtail it through government action. These individuals demean and denigrate the values of our Constitution and must be held accountable for their doublespeak and dishonesty. This institution and its members have long been unwavering in defending the First Amendment, and it is the duty of each of us to continue to uphold this precious protection.

While there are many things we've disagreed with O'Rielly about, on this one, we agree 100%. And, the thanks he gets is effectively being fired by the President... and then replaced with someone who appears to believe the exact opposite.

Simington is apparently the guy who wrote the utterly nonsensical, blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order that President Trump signed after he got mad that Twitter placed two fact checking notices on his dangerous and misleading tweets.

Note the situation here. Twitter (and the rest of the internet) is now being punished for providing more speech. This is, of course, what people like Simington like to claim they support. But when it comes down to reality, they seem to want to just force the internet to host the speech of their friends, and never to do anything such as present counterarguments. On top of that, they wish to force private companies to host speech they do not support and do not believe in. All of this is unconstitutional.

Yet, now the author of this nonsense gets rewarded with a potential FCC Commissionership.

It's not clear if the Senate would find the time to do confirmation hearings before the election, but there's a decent chance that now rather than there being just one (Hi, Brendan Carr) FCC Commissioner who relishes using the power of the FCC to punish companies he doesn't like, we'll have two FCC Commissioners who have abandoned all pretenses that the Republican FCC Commissioners support the 1st Amendment and favor a "light touch" regulatory regime. They seem to only favor that for the telcos so many FCC Commissioners end up going to work for after leaving the FCC. For internet companies? They seem to think the opposite.

Considering Simington's direct role in writing the executive order, and then working at NTIA while it crafted the petition for the current FCC review of Section 230, you would think that, should he actually be approved by the Senate, he should at the very least recuse himself from this particular matter. But, given this particular administration and their unwillingness to actually obey the law and follow the rules when it comes to "owning the libs" or whatever their motivation is, it wouldn't surprise me to see him take part in any vote.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fairness doctrine, fcc, mike o'rielly, nathan simington, section 230, speech police

Go here to see the original:
Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner - Techdirt