Monthly Archives: April 2021

The leading research universities in the UK have urged the government to be proportionate in its planned legislation to promote free speech on campus, arguing that existing laws and regulations are sufficient to protect academic freedom.

In an intensification of ministers culture war agenda, the Queens speech to parliament on 11 May will contain measures on the campus free speech, potentially including the creation of a free speech champion for England, extending legal requirements on free speech to student unions, and allowing speakers who are no platformed to sue for compensation.

But the 24 members of the Russell Group are concerned that the measures will add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on top of existing freedom of expression legislation and requirements under the Prevent anti-radicalisation programme, as well as employment and contract laws protecting staff.

In a statement of principles, the group said its members were already working to uphold free speech and academic freedom as a responsibility our universities take extremely seriously.

Russell Group universities work closely with staff, students unions and other organisations to defend and maintain freedom of expression on campus. Speaker events addressing diverse views on complex issues go ahead every week at universities across the UK, the group said.

Tim Bradshaw, the Russell Groups chief executive, said: Our universities will always champion the importance of free speech, uphold the legal protections already in place and, if government feels it is necessary to enhance protections further, we will work with them to find proportionate solutions.

This statement underlines our determination to ensure campuses remain places where students and staff are exposed to a diversity of ideas and views. We hope the government recognise that and works with us so any new measures reflect the work already being done.

Despite a small number of high profile no platforming cases such as the former Conservative minister Amber Rudd being cancelled as a speaker by a student group in Oxford the number of such cases remains low. A survey last year found just six of more than 10,000 events planned at 61 students unions were cancelled, with four of the six cancellations being the result of administrative failures.

The statement follows City, University of Londons announcement on Wednesday that it is renaming its business school after the celebrated 18th century mathematician Thomas Bayes, as part of a drive to improve its record on diversity.

The business school had be named after John Cass, a prominent figure during the early years of the Atlantic slave trade, until the university ditched the reference to him last July following pressure from thousands of students and staff.

City, University of London also announced 10 full undergraduate scholarships with a 6,000 annual stipend for black students based in the UK, and funding for five doctorate scholarships for black British students.

Gavin Williamson, the education secretary for England, said he welcomed the Russell Groups statement of principles as a positive step in the right direction.

All universities and colleges should think hard about their own policies, and what they can do to further protect freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, Williamson said.

Alison Scott-Baumann, a professor of society and belief at Soas, said the universities were right to say that they already encouraged debate on difficult and complex issues.

However the situation becomes muddled by frequent and unjustified moral panic attacks in the media and in government: there is a risk that the public debate on free speech will choke free speech, she added.

Universities must be much more assertive to ensure freedom of expression and should conduct open debate about this public moral panic.

More here:
UK universities urge government to be proportionate in free speech legislation - The Guardian

As I wrote in a preceding essay, the First Amendment was written to limit the governments power. In the 18th century, only the state was conceived as possibly wielding the power to keep free people from speaking their minds. Thus, if maintaining a free people requires free speech, it followed that the government must be kept from controlling speech. For a long time, no more was necessary, but that would change.

As the United States grew in population and prosperity, there was very little agitation against business. There did not need to be. Most businesses were small affairs, owned by one man or one family, employing a handful of workers. Relations between labor and management were dealt with between individuals.

In 1854, Abraham Lincoln summarized this small-scale economy, speaking of a system in which a man may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

Yet as corporations grew in size and power, that true system changed. Instead of one apprentice negotiating with an owner, a company that employed thousands would tell workers what they would get: take it or leave it.

In response, workers began to join together in trade unions, leveling the playing field, although diminishing their own independence. The balance between workers and management was restored, but the growing power of corporations still overpowered that of individual consumers.

Antitrust and utility laws were the response, but none of this much affected the realm of free speech. There was no news monopoly newspapers were more plentiful than today and restrictions on the new technology of radio came from the government, not the station owners. The biggest threat to the practice of free speech remained the state.

Although the two streams of jurisprudence here anti-monopoly and free speech did not much overlap in the early twentieth century, some of the same great thinkers were doing work in both. Foremost among these was Louis Brandeis, who joined the Supreme Court in 1916.

Brandeis was a progressive who saw Big Government and Big Business as equally threatening to the average American. Although he focused more on the growth of corporate power in his days as a private lawyer, Brandeis saw the danger in the government becoming too powerful. His solution was to resist consolidation in both regards keep businesses small and local, and the government could stay small, too.

In regards to free speech, Brandeis also led the resistance to censorship, although often unsuccessfully. While American citizens were the freest in the world in their right to speak and publish, limits remained.

The so-called Red Scare that followed communist revolutions in Europe led governments to clamp down on peoples right to advocate socialist ideas in America. In Whitney v. California in 1924, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to one such law. Brandeis was in the minority, but Whitney soon became one of the rare cases more famous for the dissent than for the opinion of the court. Brandeis wrote:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.

Brandeiss words remain one of the great summaries of the custom and law of free speech in America and follows the line of thinking started by Milton and Locke. In 1969, the Supreme Court adopted Brandeiss ideas and overturned Whitney.

Since then, the governments attempts to restrict free speech have mostly been rebuffed. Some efforts, like the censorship at issue in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC, nearly succeeded, but most failed and failed quickly. The struggle for free speech in law trends toward greater liberty.

Today, however, something novel is happening in America: private actors have become a greater threat to free speech than the government is. Part of that comes from a laudable achievement we have tamed free speechs historical foe, the state. But part also comes from the rise of new means of communication that not only displace the old but are uniquely susceptible to monopolization in a way the old media were not.

That means that for the first time, corporate power might be a greater threat to our rights especially our right to free speech than the power wielded by the state. This accounts in part for the recent resurgence in antitrust advocacy.

Not long ago, there was considerable diversity not only in the sources of news and entertainment but also in the distribution of such things. Not only have the sources of news been subject to consolidation, but they have become separated from the methods by which they reach us. This vertical dis-integration might be seen as an antitrust success, except that the distribution methods are even more consolidated than the news sources.

The distribution sources in question are the social media giants of Facebook and Twitter, along with less powerful players in the field like Reddit and LinkedIn. Instagram and WhatsApp are also cited as delivery methods for news, but it does little good to mention them since they are both owned by Facebook. Consolidation across Silicon Valley has narrowed the real players in Big Tech to about half a dozen: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft among them.

As far as free speech is concerned, some of these players are more dangerous than others, but the interaction among them is also a problem. Six big technological competitors might look like a healthy industry, but it is an illusion. While they clash at times, these Big Six have divided up the tech world much as the 19th-century colonial powers divided up the globe. Spheres of influence are mutually respected and the political aims of each align with the others.

First, the social media giants established monopolies in their respective fields. As companies grow in power, they exert control over their marketplaces. They evaded detection in doing so because their monopolies are different from those of the past.

What they monopolize is not a commercial product like Standard Oils monopoly on kerosene. Their monopoly is on access to a thing they created and that, outside of their network, cannot exist.As I wrote in the Washington Examiner last year:

There is no place to tweet except Twitter; there is no way to create Facebook posts outside Facebook. If Facebook or Twitter delete your posts or restrict your account, that network is closed to you, and each is a network that increasingly dominates the exchange of ideas. Even beyond the market for news and commentary, access to social media for businesses (especially Facebook) can be a make-or-break proposition.

The monopoly is on each social media companys network, and the danger is in our increasing reliance on those networks to convey ideas. By 2019, a majority of Americans said they often or sometimes got their news over social media, and the number increases every year.

Unlike old-fashioned monopolies, social media companies use their power not only to exclude competitors but also to exclude customers with whom they disagree. AT&T wanted to control all telephony, but at least they only wanted your money. Facebook and Twitter also want to limit what you say, the equivalent of a telephone operator breaking in to shut down phone calls that their bosses find distasteful.

The Department of Justice shattered AT&Ts monopoly in the 1980s, breaking the company into several Baby Bells. The result was cheaper, better telephone service for everyone.

But that precise solution will not work for social media. No one is concerned about the price of a service that is given away for free, and the quality of the apps was never the problem. This network, and equal access to it, is the issue. Destroying that network would make service worse, not better. Moreover, it misses the point.

The intersection of monopoly power with free speech is something new. Even beyond the threat of exclusion from a social media companys network, the collusion among the networks further stifles free expression. Consider the treatment of a rival social network.

In reaction to Twitter shutting down accounts with whose content it disagreed, two entrepreneurs launched an alternative site, Gab, in 2016. It went public in 2017 and seemed to offer the traditional alternative for dissatisfaction with a business: taking your business elsewhere. If the dispute with Twitter had been a traditional one, such as price or quality, that would have solved the problem.

But the nature of Twitters monopoly worked against Gab. Twitter users who had not been banned were reluctant to leave the network, because as unhappy as they were with it, it still offered the best forum for reaching a mass audience. Some maintained accounts at both sites, but only the banned those who had no other option were active users at Gab. Google decided it was a hate forum and removed it from their Play Store. Apple had never allowed it in the first place.

Gab was then restricted only to people extremely motivated to seek it out, and it became a deeply unpleasant echo chamber. When it emerged that the perpetrator of the 2018 mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue was an active Gab user, the site was forever known as the home of murderous extremists. The providers that hosted them terminated their arrangements, forcing it further underground. The same process played out with Parler in 2020, and it will play out again for the next would-be Twitter competitor.

Mainstream opinion is unbothered. Few had heard of Gab or Parler, which they could not find in their phones app stores, and many who were aware of it associated it with Nazis. Shutting them down was good riddance to bad rubbish.

Those few who raised free speech concerns were told to read the law, as though that is all there is to our ancient liberty. Recent episodes of tech censorship have involved a larger combination of tech companies and taken in a larger swath of users including a former American president.

The drive to stifle speech is not limited to social media. Other tech monopolies have flexed their muscles. Amazon, which controls a majority of book sales in the United States, has started deciding which kinds of books it will allow. Anything that explores sexual orientation or gender dysphoria as mental illnesses is now forbidden. Tweets and Facebook posts on the subject are also likely to be censored if they voice the wrong opinions.

If free speech is necessary to enable individuals to discover virtue and choose their leaders, then monopoly censorship is just as harmful as government censorship. Even beyond the specific harm of stifling free expression, it does harm to the idea of free speech itself.

Legalistic denials from Big Tech supporters its not censorship if its not the government! miss the point. By allowing continued monopolies over segments of the public square and acquiescing in a restriction of free thought there, we erode the principle of free speech while piously upholding the laws that do nothing against this new threat.

As long as people believe in free speech, it will endure. According to a 2020 poll by Pew, a majority of Americans see the social media threat for what it is: censorship. That is good news. People are not distracted by the distinction of government and non-government; they see a powerful force trying to muzzle them and do not like it. The people understand that this right belongs to them and will resist anyone who tries to take it away.

The bad news is that such sentiments are declining. Americans, especially the young, increasingly are intolerant of speech that they hate. Instead of the liberty and courage that Brandeis extolled, they seek to decide public questions with private force. Milton and Locke would recognize the methods from their own times, although the actors and questions debated have changed.

That same 2020 Pew poll showed a majority of Democrats endorsing social media companies labeling of inaccurate tweets and posts. Polling by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) that same year finds that significant percentages of college students support suppressing unpopular speech through hecklers veto (27 percent) or blocking entry to an event (11 percent). Only 4 percent of those surveyed claimed that it was acceptable to use violence to suppress offensive speech, but that is still too many.

We all have reason to doubt the accuracy of polling after the failures of the last few years, but there can be no doubt that the principle of free expression is under renewed threat. Looking at that threat requires reacquainting ourselves with the history of free speech and monopolies. Our forefathers fought censorship and fought monopolistic abuses, but political battles are rarely won for all time. These two are back, joined up in novel fashion, but no different than what came before.

The lessons of Milton, Locke, Bastiat, Lincoln, and Brandeis must guide a new generation to protect our ancient freedoms. If we fail, those freedoms will fade from memory and their protection in law will fade with them. We may vote for legislators, but few of us will ever directly influence the words of a law.

In the custom that underpins the law, though, we all have a role to play. By resisting censorship from the government, corporations, or cancel mobs, we remind the world of the value of the freedoms won and cherished in centuries past, and further reinforce them for the challenges to yet come.

More:
Is Big Business Now A Greater Threat To Free Speech Than Government? - The Federalist

(Photo by Ian Gavan/Getty Images)

This shouldnt need to be said, but The Simpsons is satire. It often makes fun of people. In a recent episode it sorta, kinda mocked the singer Morrissey, as most of the episode was about Lisas obsession with a band called the Snuffs and its moody lead singer Quilloughby (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). It was pretty clearly satirizing Morissey, and exaggerating a bunch of character traits many people associate with Morrissey, and mixing in some stereotypical character traits associated with washed up old rock stars. I can understand why some people might not like being gently mocked on a popular TV show, though I think some well adjusted folks might recognize that even being relevant enough to be mocked on The Simpons is probably a nice nod towards your cultural relevance, but apparently not Morrissey.

After his manager got all pissy and accused the show ofbeing racistfor its portrayal of Morrissey (?!?). Morrissey himself then posted a bizarre rantsaying he wanted to sueand that theres no free speech any more and none of it makes any sense at all.

This is my first comment (and hopefully my last) on The Simpsons episode which I know has enraged many people. The hatred shown towards me from the creators of The Simpsons is obviously a taunting lawsuit, but one that requires more funding than I could possibly muster in order to make a challenge. Neither do I have a determined business squad of legal practitioners ready to pounce. I think this is generally understood and is the reason why I am so carelessly and noisily attacked.

For what its worth, Morrisseydoeshave a decently extensivehistory of litigationover mentions of him in the mediahe disagreed with so, uh, the idea that people would think they could attack him because he wont sue is already almost certainly not true. Hehasa history of suing. So, if anything that seems more likely to create chilling effects around anyone talking about him.

But, I guess were sort of leaping over the larger point here:sue over what? Its a satire. They dont even call the character Morrissey. There isno legal basis for any kind of lawsuit. Especially in the US where The Simpsons is made. What possible violation of the law is there in lightly mocking the concept of an aging rock star? And how fucking huge of an ego must you have to think that thats something you can sue over?

But, his comment gets even dumber.

In a world obsessed with Hate Laws, there are none that protect me.

Um. Yeah, sorry, but no hate laws any where are designed to protect the flailing egos of aging rock stars from being gently satirized on a popular TV show. If you think thats what hate laws are for then youve got some serious ego problems.

Anyway, forgive me, we all know this because we can see how music and the world in general, has become a mesmerizing mess, and we must let it go spinning along unbearably because free speech no longer exists. We all know this.

Wait, what? How does this even make any sense. Free speech no longer exists because you cant sue a TV show for satirizing someone kinda like you for hate speech? Its a weird sort of brain that complains about a lack of free speech just sentences after whining about how you cant sue someone for their speech.

Everyone reacts to being mocked in different ways, but whining about how you want to sue to silence people, while simultaneously claiming theres no more free speech seems dumber than most options out there.

Morrissey Thinks Free Speech No Longer Exists Because He Cant Sue The Simpsons For Satirizing Him

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Wyden-Backed Bill Would Make It Illegal For Government To Obtain Location Data Without A WarrantCaptive Markets Are Just Hostages; Or Why Your McDonalds Never Seems To Have A Functioning Shake MachineLaw Enforcement Officials Confirm Clearviews Facial Recognition Tech Is Mostly Useless

Read more from the original source:
Morrissey Thinks Free Speech No Longer Exists Because He Cant Sue The Simpsons For Satirizing Him - Above the Law

A new party in this years elections has said political correctness has become suffocating and aims to stop cancel culture.

Rebecca Robb, 26, is standing for the Heritage Party in Louth South ward in the Lincolnshire County Council elections in May.

She spoke to reporters alongside party leader and London Mayoral candidateDavid Kurten at a campaign event in Louth on Wednesday, April 21.

She said: [Im standing] because there isnt a party currently that reflects my views and I didnt see anyone standing for an alternative party. I want to be the person to stand up for people who do have different ideas.

Nationally, the party said it stands for liberty, low immigration and preserving the environment.

It calls for the end to lockdown, politically-correct policing, divisive identity politics such as Black Lives Matter and radical feminism and cancel culture.

The murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin in America last year sparked riots and demonstrations all over the world including calls for reforms and accusations of institutional racism.

Chauvin was this week found guilty on three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter, which BLM campaigners have claimed as a victory in their fight for equality.

The Heritage Party promotes the protection of freedom of speech, the rejection of vaccine passports and traditional family values including being pro-life.

Marriage, they say, is between a man and a woman and LGBT relationship and sex education shouldnt be taught in schools.

Gay marriage has been legal since 2014, while from September 2020, all secondary schools in England have been required to teach LGBT-inclusive RSE.

There are 30 Heritage Party candidates across the country in this years local elections. Leader David Kurten is in the running to be London Mayor.

Visiting Louth on Wednesday, Mr Kurten said: Political correctness has grown and grown and grown, and its become suffocating.

You have people being no platformed because they have the wrong opinions, not politically correct opinions.

People are actually being thrown out of their jobs, some people are getting pursued by the police for having the wrong opinions or making a joke on the internet.

We think thats absolutely wrong and we need to restore free speech and a bit of sanity in that area.

He said terms such as racist or homophobic speech were trigger words.

If someone tells a joke or something, and its not harassing or abusing a specific individual person, they should be allowed to tell that joke.

Rebecca is originally from Mablethorpe and moved to Louth three years ago in order to access better schools for her children.

Louths a nice quiet little town to bring up our children and thats why Id like to keep it a nice area not just for us but for our children so they have a good future.

Her aims as a candidate will be to get businesses to re-open following the last year and fight a further lockdown, to get the council to take more responsibility over tackling litter and fly-tipping in the town, including increasing bin collections, rather than relying on volunteers.

She has also suggested a net for Louth Canal to keep it clean, moving a zebra crossing on St Bernards Avenue further up to increase safety, turning streetlights back on and more community policing. She said she would lobby the government for the reinstatement of the East Lincolnshire railway.

She agreed with her party boss though: Political correctness has just gone gone too far, we dont need these radical groups to bring us together and I think, actually, if we focused on treating each other based on character rather than our skin colour or our background, you would get along much better.

Rebecca will be running against incumbent Independent Sarah Parkin, who in 2017 ran won under the Labour banner taking 40.8% of the vote. This time shes been replaced by her party with Ros Jackson.

Fellow indy Jill Makinson-Sanders was second place last time round with 27.9% of the vote, while Terry Taylor will be hoping to do better than his predecessor Chris Greens 26.4% tally.

Protest parties UKIP and the BNP came last in 2017 with 3.4% and 1.5% of the vote respectively.

Spotted an error? Please notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

More here:
New Heritage Party: 'In with free speech, out with BLM and LGBTQ education' - The Lincolnite