Monthly Archives: April 2021

A colleague recently asked me if I approved of Big Tech censoring political and cultural voices on their platforms. My colleague believes as do I in natural rights, minimal government and that owners of private property can use it as they see fit. We both condemned the Big Tech censorship. Then he asked if the government could regulate these platforms. I offered that it could not.

These questions arose from the reported efforts by Facebook to bar from its platforms those who wish to offer scientific, political or cultural arguments against mass vaccinations. Many of these arguments are sound and fascinating. Nearly all are provocative. They are the essence of free speech. Should those who offer them be silenced on a platform used by billions of folks?

Here is the backstory.

The freedoms of thought, speech and publishing are natural rights. Just as one can naturally think as one wishes, one can say what one thinks and publish what one says. Speaking and publishing are also constitutional rights since the First Amendment expressly protects them from government infringement. A natural right comes from our humanity not from the government and is knowable and usable by the exercise of reason.

Speech is second nature to us, and in America for the most part speech is free. In this context, the word free doesnt mean without cost. It means without a government permission slip or reprisal.

The history of free speech in America is a tortuous one. In 1798, John Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to punish speech critical of himself and the Congress. Abraham Lincoln arrested newspaper reporters and editors in northern states critical of his war leadership. Woodrow Wilson arrested those who urged draft resistance during his war.

In all of these interferences with speech, the government has done the interfering. Indeed, the reach of the First Amendment is limited to government. Even though it states, Congress shall make no law, today, that language applies to all legislative bodies and executive officials local, state and federal. Congress cannot outlaw speech; neither can a state legislature or a city council. The president cannot interfere with speech; neither can a governor or local officials.

What about private persons operating private venues? Can executives at Facebook ban speech with which they disagree? The short answer is: Yes, they can.

Facebook operates a business that consists of making a digital bulletin board available for all. The bulletin board is private property. It is not owned by the government. The owner of private property who invites others onto his property for the benefit of both can establish ground rules for the use of that property. You can kick me out of your garden party because you dont like the color of my shirt. You can also do so if you dont like the tenor of my words. And you can fire me as your lawyer if you hate my political views. The government cannot do any of these things.

If Big Tech platforms want to migrate from communication to indoctrination, they are free to do so under basic property rights and First Amendment law. While I understand and share the anger and frustration of those whose views have been censored, this is not a problem for government to solve because it is private property and the government can neither silence nor compel speech on private property.

The very threats to insinuate government controls between writers and their venues are themselves unconstitutional, as they constitute chilling.

Chilling consists of any intentional government behavior official or rogue that gives a speaker or writer pause or second thoughts out of fear of what the government might do as a consequence of the exercise of freedom of speech. Thus, an FBI agent coming nose to nose with you as you are publicly criticizing the FBI would constitute chilling, as would the threat to do so, as is the threat by persons in government to regulate the Big Tech bulletin boards.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of evaluating the content of speech. I am not talking about noise in the streets at 3 a.m. I am talking about public officials having the power to dictate what private people and venues may say and publish.

Such government behavior would undermine the fabric and core of the United States. It would truly be a remedy worse than the disease because the government would favor the speech of its patrons and punish the speech of its adversaries the very acts the First Amendment was written to prevent.

None of this is to say that Big Tech executives are faultless. It is hateful for them to define our identities. And that is what they do when they silence critics of vaccines or even when they silence a former president. Everyone has the natural right to be the author of his or her own identity and destiny. And we have the natural right to become informed by gathering whatever data and opinions we choose to gather. We are not infants who thrive on a filtered stream of news and opinion, tailored to please those who do the filtering.

What can we do about this? We can use the tools of the free market and the First Amendment. We can loudly leave the censoring venues and not patronize their advertisers. We can build and support other venues. We can preach the values of an informed public and the virtues of personal liberty. We can foster widespread opinions that censorship is repellant and censors should be shunned.

But we can never use the government to compel or evaluate speech. That will destroy what freedoms we have.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:
Big Tech and freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel

Ohio State Reps. Jeff LaRe and Shane Wilkin introduced House Bill 22, which is aimed to modify the state's law in order to expand the definition of obstruction of justice.

Under the new legislation, "failure to follow lawful order from a law enforcement officer or diverting a law enforcement officer's attention," would be added to ORC 2921.32.

If the bill is passed, it would make it a punishable crime for individuals to interfere with the duties of a law enforcement officer after a lawful order is given.

Opponents of the bill currently being considered in the Ohio House are warning that its goal of expanding the definition of obstruction of justice will undermine police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself.

Sponsors of House Bill 22 say its needed to better protect the public and law enforcement in light of last summers protests following the police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

Rep. Tavia Galonski of Akron says she already has concerns about police efforts to protect and serve.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Undermining police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself

House Bill 22 would hamper the efforts of individuals who see injustice and believe it should be pointed out, she said.

The proposed changes under House Bill 22 include adding taunting as a form of obstruction of justice, which is also big concern for her.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Concerns about the language in the proposed changes

"One persons taunt is another persons attempt to save a life, she said.

Galonski also points to the fact that only three out of 30 people testifying at committee hearings so far have spoken in favor of the bill.

See the rest here:
House Bill 22 Raises Concerns for Police Reform Efforts and Freedom of Speech - WKSU News

In the upcoming week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in three First Amendment cases. While government regulation of speech lies at the heart of these cases, their facts which range from a cheerleaders use of profanity on social media to state regulations for charitable contributions could not be more different.

On Monday, April 26, SCOTUS will hear the consolidated cases ofAmericans for Prosperity v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra.

California law requires charities within the state to submit a list of the names and addresses of their major donors. Under this policy, non-profits must report anyone who donated $5,000 or more or who contributed more than 2-percent of the organizations total contributions to the state; California then keeps that information confidential.

Conservative watchdog groups filed lawsuits arguing that the policy violates the First Amendment, specifically in that it deprives donors of their privacy in association. According to the plaintiff petitioners, California has no need to compel this sensitive donor information to serve any law-enforcement goal, and the state virtually never uses any of the information for law-enforcement purposes.

The Ninth Circuit applied exacting scrutiny and sided with California; petitioners now ask SCOTUS to reverse, arguing that the case is a politically-charged matter of the highest stakes. From Americans for Prosperitys brief:

This is not the time or the climate to weaken First Amendment rights to anonymity. Social and political discord have reached a nationwide fever. Perceived ideological opponents are hunted, vilified, and targeted in ways that were unthinkable before thedawn of the Internet. As partisan pendulums swing back and forth in governmental offices, and as online campaigns rage against perceived ideological foes, donors to causes spanning the spectrum predictably fear that exposure of their identities will trigger harassment and retaliation far surpassing anything reasonable people would choose to bear. Vindicating freedom of association in this context will therefore mean the difference between preserving a robust culture and practice of private association and charitable giving, versus opening the door to chilling governmental intrusion.

On Wednesday, April 28, the Court will again consider the First Amendment in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case about a high-school students Snapchat story.

B.L. had been shopping with friends on a Saturday afternoon in 2017 when she posted a Snapchat story showing her frustration with a recent decision by her cheerleading team. The post included a selfie in which B.L. and her friend extended their middle fingers. The caption read, Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything. A second post said, Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but thats [sic] doesnt matter to anyone else?

When B.L.s school officials saw the post, B.L. was cut from the junior varsity cheerleading team on the grounds that she had violated team and school rules. The schools official policy requires athletes to have respect for [their] school, coaches . . . [and] other cheerleaders, avoid foul language and inappropriate gestures, and refrain from sharing negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches . . . on the internet.

B.L.s parents ultimately brought a federal lawsuit after they exhausted their appeals at the school-district level. At both the district and circuit court levels, they won. The case, though, presents complex questions regarding off-campus speech. While under prevailing law students do notshed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, schools may legally impose some limits on student speech, both on and off campus.

The case presents the Court with an opportunity to hand down a framework to be used by all circuits; currently, the approach used by theThird Circuit in B.L.s appeal is at odds with approaches used by the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits in other cases.

[image via Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
The Supreme Court Justices Are Set to Hear Two Very Different Free Speech Cases What You Should Know - Law & Crime

Further Education News

The FE News Channel gives you the latest education news and updates on emerging education strategies and the#FutureofEducation and the #FutureofWork.

Providing trustworthy and positive Further Education news and views since 2003, we are a digital news channel with a mixture of written word articles, podcasts and videos. Our specialisation is providing you with a mixture of the latest education news, our stance is always positive, sector building and sharing different perspectives and views from thought leaders, to provide you with a think tank of new ideas and solutions to bring the education sector together and come up with new innovative solutions and ideas.

FE News publish exclusive peer to peer thought leadership articles from our feature writers, as well as user generated content across our network of over 3000 Newsrooms, offering multiple sources of the latest education news across the Education and Employability sectors.

FE News also broadcast live events, podcasts with leading experts and thought leaders, webinars, video interviews and Further Education news bulletins so you receive the latest developments inSkills Newsand across the Apprenticeship, Further Education and Employability sectors.

Every week FE News has over 200 articles and new pieces of content per week. We are a news channel providing the latest Further Education News, giving insight from multiple sources on the latest education policy developments, latest strategies, through to our thought leaders who provide blue sky thinking strategy, best practice and innovation to help look into the future developments for education and the future of work.

In May 2020, FE News had over 120,000 unique visitors according to Google Analytics and over 200 new pieces of news content every week, from thought leadership articles, to the latest education news via written word, podcasts, video to press releases from across the sector.

We thought it would be helpful to explain how we tier our latest education news content and how you can get involved and understand how you can read the latest daily Further Education news and how we structure our FE Week of content:

Our main features are exclusive and are thought leadership articles and blue sky thinking with experts writing peer to peer news articles about the future of education and the future of work. The focus is solution led thought leadership, sharing best practice, innovation and emerging strategy. These are often articles about the future of education and the future of work, they often then create future education news articles. We limit our main features to a maximum of 20 per week, as they are often about new concepts and new thought processes. Our main features are also exclusive articles responding to the latest education news, maybe an insight from an expert into a policy announcement or response to an education think tank report or a white paper.

FE Voices was originally set up as a section on FE News to give a voice back to the sector. As we now have over 3,000 newsrooms and contributors, FE Voices are usually thought leadership articles, they dont necessarily have to be exclusive, but usually are, they are slightly shorter than Main Features. FE Voices can include more mixed media with the Further Education News articles, such as embedded podcasts and videos. Our sector response articles asking for different comments and opinions to education policy announcements or responding to a report of white paper are usually held in the FE Voices section. If we have a live podcast in an evening or a radio show such as SkillsWorldLive radio show, the next morning we place the FE podcast recording in the FE Voices section.

In sector news we have a blend of content from Press Releases, education resources, reports, education research, white papers from a range of contributors. We have a lot of positive education news articles from colleges, awarding organisations and Apprenticeship Training Providers, press releases from DfE to Think Tanks giving the overview of a report, through to helpful resources to help you with delivering education strategies to your learners and students.

We have a range of education podcasts on FE News, from hour long full production FE podcasts such as SkillsWorldLive in conjunction with the Federation of Awarding Bodies, to weekly podcasts from experts and thought leaders, providing advice and guidance to leaders. FE News also record podcasts at conferences and events, giving you one on one podcasts with education and skills experts on the latest strategies and developments.

We have over 150 education podcasts on FE News, ranging from EdTech podcasts with experts discussing Education 4.0 and how technology is complimenting and transforming education, to podcasts with experts discussing education research, the future of work, how to develop skills systems for jobs of the future to interviews with the Apprenticeship and Skills Minister.

We record our own exclusive FE News podcasts, work in conjunction with sector partners such as FAB to create weekly podcasts and daily education podcasts, through to working with sector leaders creating exclusive education news podcasts.

FE News have over 700 FE Video interviews and have been recording education video interviews with experts for over 12 years. These are usually vox pop video interviews with experts across education and work, discussing blue sky thinking ideas and views about the future of education and work.

FE News has a free events calendar to check out the latest conferences, webinars and events to keep up to date with the latest education news and strategies.

The FE Newsroom is home to your content if you are a FE News contributor. It also help the audience develop relationship with either you as an individual or your organisation as they can click through and box set consume all of your previous thought leadership articles, latest education news press releases, videos and education podcasts.

Do you want to contribute, share your ideas or vision or share a press release?

If you want to write a thought leadership article, share your ideas and vision for the future of education or the future of work, write a press release sharing the latest education news or contribute to a podcast, first of all you need to set up a FE Newsroom login (which is free): once the team have approved your newsroom (all content, newsrooms are all approved by a member of the FE News team- no robots are used in this process!), you can then start adding content (again all articles, videos and podcasts are all approved by the FE News editorial team before they go live on FE News). As all newsrooms and content are approved by the FE News team, there will be a slight delay on the team being able to review and approve content.

RSS Feed Selection Page

Read the original here:
The Russell Group's statement of principles on universities protecting freedom of speech - FE News

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia is suing political artist and activist Fahmi Reza for his recent satirical artwork that has allegedly insulted the institution. Fahmi himself has stood firm on his stance that satire is a form of expression that he has a right to exercise.

BFM speaks to Thulsi Manogaran, an activist with a civil society coalition working on freedom of expression, on the position of satire when it comes to freedom of speech. Lawyer Khaizan Sharizad Razak then tells the station about the legalities in pursuing action against satire. Finally, Ernest Ng, comic book writer of CovidBallz, explains why satire is important.

Producers: Loo Juosie, Adeline Choong and Alia ZefriPresenters: Sharmilla Ganesan and Lee Chwi Lynn

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.

More:
Should satire be protected as free speech? - Aliran

James Acaster. Photo-Illustration: by Vulture; Photo.by YouTube

Earlier this year, someone tweeted a clip with the caption james acaster calling out transphobic comedians for two minutes straight. The joke, which is from the opening of Acasters most recent, critically acclaimed special, Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999, went megaviral. In it, Acaster mocks comedians, like Ricky Gervais, who, when anyone criticizes them, dont listen to the feedback and instead pat themselves on the back for having such challenging material. The rest of the special is less focused on the state of comedy, but it continues in this vein by exploring what is actually challenging in stand-up, like talking about difficult subjects and taking responsibility when you do so.

On Vultures Good One podcast, Acaster talks about how he writes material, figuring out how to talk about mental health onstage, his complicated relationship with his audience, and being on the The Great British Bake Off. You can read an excerpt from the transcript or listen to the full episode below. Tune in to Good One every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

It seems like the special is questioning what material is actually challenging and what comedians use their free speech for. This is explicitly the case with the joke about Ricky Gervais types.At the time when I was writing it, I felt that a lot of people felt the same way I did. I thought I was doing an observational bit and just pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of comics who say, Oh, Im too challenging, and Im challenging the status quo by saying this. The status quo is what you just said its small-mindedness and bigotry and stereotyping of minorities and marginalized groups. That has been the status quo for centuries. And what you are doing is you are talking like people have talked your entire life. When you were a baby, people had this point of view, and the point of view that youre challenging is the progressive one that is actually challenging you. And you dont like being challenged. Youre doing this routine.

These people also say, Im just trying to start a conversation. Im just having a debate. Its like, yeah, and this person is responding to you and youre trying to shut it down by saying, Im just trying to have a conversation. Youre not responding to them. So, you dont know how conversations work. You dont know how debates work. All you want to do is say a very old-fashioned point of view that and no one can challenge it. Everything that youre saying about wanting to challenge people, wanting to have a conversation, free speech being important, is bullshit, because all of your actions are the opposite of it. So, therefore, this is ripe for comedy, because what you are doing is ridiculous. Its funny to do a routine about this.

I would find that sometimes I would get people who disagree with me being very vocal about that. I had to kick a man out because he was shouting hate speech at the top of his voice which is different from freedom of speech, by the way. Free speech and hate speech are different things. So, yeah, originally it was like, Well, this is just a routine that Im sure most people can relate to. And even if they cant relate to it, its just pointing out how ludicrous something is. And so hopefully that will get them onboard to laugh at that. And that was it.

I would be surprised if I had successfully changed anyones mind in a way, because I feel its pretty nave to think that, especially these days. People just get more and more uncomfortable with change. But the main thing was for it to be for people who feel the same way I do, and to just do that routine, because theres so many routines which are the opposite of it. You just want to put a routine out there going, Actually, I disagree with that, and enough of that comedy, please.

In the show, you give a disclaimer that what youre talking about is in the past and that youve already dealt with it. There are certain comedians who have a different approach Let me talk it out onstage but you intentionally didnt want to give an audience your raw experience of that. Can you talk about that and the instinct some comedians have to use the stage for therapy?Its not that I dont think its the right thing to do; it wasnt the right thing to do for me. I want there to be a healthy boundary between me and the audience. Doing a show like this, where Im talking about my real life and my struggles with mental health in the past, people can feel like they are now entitled to step over those boundaries and speculate as to whether your mental health actually is okay now. I dont want to encourage that in any way. And I definitely dont want to open up to them about stuff that I havent opened up to people in my life about. If Im talking to an audience about it, then Ive also talked to my family about it. Ive talked to my friends about it. Ive talked to a therapist. Ive dealt with it with myself.

Beyond having appropriate boundaries, there will be people in the audience who are going through stuff themselves, and I dont want to go up in front of them before Ive got a good handle on things. I dont want to encourage what can sometimes be quite a romantic phase when youre inside the worst part of things. Sometimes when you are struggling, you can have a tendency to romanticize it and see yourself as some sort of, like, Hemingway. I dont want to be onstage being like, Im a mess, and doesnt that make me such a great, mysterious artist? And then the people in the audience might think, Thats me too. I will continue to go down that path and not get help.

You cant sort it out onstage. You can probably develop inappropriate relationships with audience members who come up to you after shows, want to talk to you about it, and then the codependency stuff happens and all this mess could arise from that. So as long as youre not trying to fix yourself and its more cathartic, its probably fine.

Though people have been talking about their struggles with mental health in the States for a while now, I get a sense that its still fairly new in Britain. Especially the part where you talk about calling the Samaritans, after your experience on The Great British Bake Off. How did you approach it?Id already been doing a lot of the routines that touched on mental health, though I didnt deliberately set out to do a mental-health show. Those things happened to me, and it was all I wanted to talk about onstage. The more that I did it onstage, the more that it got treated like a mental-health show. People would either come up to me after to say, Thanks for talking about that, or people would heckle during the show. After I said what I say about having suicidal thoughts, I had people heckling me Man up! or saying I was a crybaby. Things like that would happen and you go, Oh, this is a bigger deal than I thought it would be. When that happened, you kind of get a bit like, Okay, there is some responsibility here.

I had a work-in-progress show, and during a routine about my agent dropping me and a lot of that is about being gaslit by my agents I was still filling out the routine and it was getting nothing. When that bit got nothing, it just felt like I was oversharing with the audience; I was telling them a really personal thing that felt heavy and depressing for them to hear. There was a man in the front row of a very small group of 50 people in a very small room. He was right on the front, virtually in my lap. And he just sat in the silence, until he said, Its hard, isnt it? And I thought he was saying, Stand-up comedy is hard and youre doing it badly. I got slightly defensive, but then he was like, Ive been through some similar stuff recently. I was like, Oh, Im sorry about that. And then he started crying. I gave him a hug, because I thought thats what I should do. So, its just me and a man onstage hugging, and the rest of the audience is just sitting there.

Afterwards I was like, I have to make sure that doesnt happen again. I have to make sure that that man or whoever in the audience doesnt feel like that, and that I havent just pushed them to the point where they relive their own trauma and start crying. That was the big thing of going, Okay, how are you doing this routine? Make sure its funny, because if its funny, its relatable to that guy. If I make the jokes relatable and Im not laughing at myself and going, Haha, I was feeling bad, and instead its the situation and how weve let it get to this point. Its the ludicrousness of how its got to this point where no ones helped me, and its more of a reflection of the society we live in, and therefore, everyones in on the joke in the moment; no ones been laughed at. And those people hopefully wont cry and feel like, Now all Im reminded of is a bad time in my life.

I stumbled into that Samaritans bit. Luckily, the first time I did it, I realized the joke is that I have been on Bake Off and I went to talk to Samaritans while covering up the fact of being on Bake Off. The joke in that situation is I had to lie and say I was a baker, which is what really happened. In the special, I kind of undersell saying I called them. I do it as a faraway thing, and I move quite quickly onto the next thing. And I put that line in there as well: If youve done it before, you know that the first time you do it, its like this So then youre not assuming that the majority of the audience dont call. Because normally in a lot of comedy, the punch is down, and it assumes everyone in the audience is like the comic, and the comic is normal and doesnt have anything wrong with them or weird about them: We can laugh at minorities or other vulnerable people or whoever, because thats not us. But the fact of the matter is those people are in the room, and youre currently making them feel like theyre weird and theyre sacks of shit. And actually going like, Those of you who have done this, you know that this Suddenly the people who havent done it, youre not making them feel like outsiders, because they already think theyre in the majority because thats what the society tells them. But it will make them go, Oh, those people are here. So, actually, its probably quite rude to laugh in their face.

You learn to try to flip the assumption of whats normal and that everyone in the audience is the normal person, because actually, none of them are. Theyve all got something that theyve been made to feel ashamed of. And its much more interesting to try and go, That thing that youve been made to feel ashamed of? Thats mad that they did that to you, and actually, youre not weird. The ludicrous thing is the system thats made you feel like that. We can laugh at that, but were not laughing at you because youre actually all right, and you dont need to go away from this gig feeling even worse than before and feeling like youre more on your own than you were before.

Read the original post:
James Acaster Never Wants to Make an Audience Member Cry Again - Vulture