Monthly Archives: May 2021

A controversial bill forcing universities in England to promote free speech has been attacked by freedom of expression campaigners, who say the legislation is more likely to have the opposite effect.

A letter to the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, from the leaders of Index on Censorship, English PEN and Article 19 says the governments plans including a free speech enforcer with powers to fine universities may have the inverse effect of further limiting what is deemed acceptable speech on campus and introducing a chilling effect both on the content of what is taught and the scope of academic research exploration.

The three organisations told Williamson they had significant concerns about the scope of the proposals, which would allow speakers to claim compensation if their free speech was curtailed by universities or student unions, and would appoint a free speech champion to the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England.

Universities will also have to satisfy new conditions on freedom of speech to maintain their registration with the OfS, which allows their students access to public funding and government-backed loans.

Universities are already bound by government legislation and have a legally binding duty to support and actively encourage freedom of expression on campus, including the right to protest. Blunt statutory tools may fail to recognise the various rights at play in any given situation, for example the rights of the speaker and the rights of students to protest against that speaker, the letter states.

This is a delicate balancing act that universities are best placed to navigate, not state regulators or courts of law. On university campuses, freedom of expression issues are best dealt with by existing legislation and by the universities and student unions themselves.

The group said the extent of no platforming on campus needed to be further investigated, noting that the OfSs own research found it was rare. Of the 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events at English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by a student union or university, less than 0.1% of the total.

None of the signatory organisations have been meaningfully consulted in the development of the legislation thus far. We would welcome the opportunity for genuine engagement in the issue of academic freedom, the letter said.

Further research is needed on the main threats to speech on campus, while the scope of inquiry into academic freedom should be widened to encompass government interference.

Universities say they already comply with a complex set of legal obligations protecting free speech for staff and students, as well as Prevent anti-extremism regulations requiring them to monitor events and speakers.

The published bill will require student unions to register with the OfS, which will have new powers to fine them for failing to comply with free speech provisions. The bill also allows students, staff, applicants for academic jobs and visiting speakers to complain to the OfS, although they must first use internal complaints procedures.

The bill has also created conflict between the Department for Education and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which hears complaints from students about their experience and education, over a regulatory overlap.

The OIA said in a statement: We remain concerned that it may be difficult for students to make a fully informed decision about which route is best for their individual circumstances and that the complexity of arrangements is still likely to create confusion for students.

The former universities minister Jo Johnson gave support to the new bill as a means of stopping universities self-censorship towards China, because of fear of retribution against students and staff. That to me is a genuine and real threat to freedom of speech and I think if the bill can perhaps help address that issue, too, it will serve a very useful purpose, he told a conference on UK-China research links.

Go here to see the original:
Campus free speech law in England likely to have opposite effect - The Guardian

Consequences matter. If there was one clear message from footballs temporary boycott of social media earlier this month, in protest at the torrent of online hate experienced disproportionately by black players, that was it.

The former England striker Ian Wright has said that hed almost given up reporting the vile stuff he receives daily because nothing ever seemed to happen to the perpetrators. It makes you feel very dehumanised. You feel like theres nothing you can do, youre helpless, he said. So two cheers, at least, for the inclusion in this weeks Queens speech of a long-delayed online safety bill aimed at holding big tech more accountable. Who wouldnt agree with the culture secretary Oliver Dowdens desire to rid social media of what he called the bile and the threats?

For all the good social media brings, it has also created unrivalled opportunities for the resentful, the bitter and the frankly sociopathic to reach those they couldnt previously touch. Children have been groomed for sexual exploitation, terrorists radicalised, the gullible sucked into conspiracy theories, teenage girls coached to self-harm, and hate normalised on platforms that have faced too little by way of consequence. Unlike some of the straw men set up by this Queens speech for ministers to knock down noisily, this problem is real. But as with too many of this governments grand plans, its one thing to announce youre going to fix the internet, and another to actually do it.

The case for action is so overwhelming that even Silicon Valleys smarter players are actively lobbying for governments to step in and regulate them, like teenagers whose illicit party has been gatecrashed by some scary-looking characters and who just want an adult to step in and deal with the problem they unwittingly created. Facebooks vice-president for global affairs, Nick Clegg, has long argued that its job would be easier if some of the sensitive decisions we have to make were instead taken by people who are democratically accountable to the people at large not by a private company. Let someone else take the flak for deciding whether Donald Trump should be banned for inciting riots, or in what circumstances posting an exposed nipple is acceptable. Judging by this rather vague and in places contradictory bill, however, it wont be that easy.

The governments proposals require tech companies to curb the use of their platforms for illegal purposes, under threat of sanction from Ofcom. So far, so clear. But it also imposes a duty of care on the biggest companies to prevent activities that arent necessarily illegal, but are potentially harmful capable of causing physical or psychological impact while simultaneously safeguarding the right to free expression, protecting political campaigners right to argue their case online and avoiding taking sides in political arguments.

All of which sounds eminently sensible, until you try applying it all in practice. Dowden ducked the question when asked by ITVs Robert Peston whether calling gay men tank-topped bumboys, as Boris Johnson once did in a newspaper column, should be outlawed online. But thats almost the easy bit.

To say that biological sex is real, and immutable, would be seen in some circles as transphobic hate speech, and in others as a perfectly reasonable statement of fact. Who decides whats harmful to whom when teenagers on TikTok are shocked and upset by very different things to their parents on Mumsnet? What about comments that arent discriminatory but are obnoxious, stupid or exhausting enough to cause cumulative psychological impacts if youre swamped with them? Where does an individuals responsibility to walk away end and the platforms responsibility to stop people feeling they have to leave begin? And how can a site not take sides in political arguments where one party chooses a liar or a bigot for a leader, and the other doesnt?

Answering these questions will shape popular culture profoundly, making the still vacant position of the Ofcom chair contenders for which reportedly include the former Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre very powerful indeed. But they will also require from tech executives the judgment of Solomon, or at the very least, editorial skills more usually demanded of the BBC and newspaper executives who wont, incidentally, be covered by this bill. Online journalism is exempt in the interests of press freedom, but, interestingly, so is below-the-line comment by readers, meaning that what a person can write underneath a tabloid article about Meghan Markle may diverge sharply from what can be said about her on Twitter or indeed in a student union debate, where a separate free speech bill will guarantee the right of controversialists to sue for compensation if theyre no-platformed by universities.

Whats the guiding principle here, the one rule that makes the boundaries of free speech clear to everyone? There isnt one, partly because Dowden is right that in a democracy there are some things politicians shouldnt dictate, and partly because setting hard-and-fast rules on this stuff is like nailing jelly to a moving wall. Yet the success of this bill depends in some ways on pretending that there is; that deep down we know whats right, and that social media companies therefore have the power to fix things, if only theyre threatened with the right stick. Well, maybe. But if not, then the story of regulating big tech may continue to be one of a shrinking circle of people passing the hot potato endlessly, each one desperately hoping the music doesnt stop with them.

See more here:
The online safety bill will show just how blurred the boundaries of free speech are - The Guardian

The government has been accused of over-exaggerating the threat to free speech on campus in order to push through new laws by a university union.

New legislation will be introduced in parliament for the first time on Wednesday, which the education secretary said would tackle the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

It would place new requirements on universities and student unions and allow a regulator able to issue fines for any breaches, among other measures.

But the move has faced backlash from a union representing thousands of university staff in the UK who have been left incredibly concerned by the move.

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), told BBC Radio 4sToday programme. We think that this bill itself is a serious threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.

She added: We think that it is an incredibly over-exaggeration of issues in order to push this through."

When asked about former home secretary, Amber Rudd, having an invitation to speak at an event at Oxford University retracted due to the Windrush scandal, Ms Grady said there were far more serious threats to free speech among university workers.

She claimed staff were facing job losses because their research agendas dont align with what the university wants and others on precarious contracts having to to align their research agendas, again, with what university wants

These are genuine threats, not people who already have very privileged jobs not being allowed to speak in an event 30 minutes before, Ms Grady said.

UK universities have said they share the governments commitment to free speech on campus - but said any new measures must be proportionate.

A spokesperson for the Russell Group, a group of leading universities, said: Our universities have always protected the right to have free and open discussion of challenging or controversial ideas.

They added: It is vital that any further changes or additions to an already complex system are proportionate, protect university autonomy and avoid creating unnecessary or burdensome bureaucracy.

Last month, the group vowed to protect free speech on campus, adding their institutions already facilitate free and frank intellectual exchanges.

A spokesperson for Universities UK - which represents 140 institutions - said: "It is important that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is proportionate - focusing on the small number of incidents - and does not duplicate existing legislation or create unnecessary bureaucracy for universities which could have unintended consequences."

On Tuesday, the Queens Speech set out government plans to introduce new laws on freedom of speech at universities.

The Department for Education (DfE) said registered universities and colleges in England will be required to promote and defend freedom of speech and academic freedom under the proposed legislation.

For the first time, students unions at universities would be required to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers under the measures in the Bill.

This follows controversy over cases of the no-platforming of speakers - where they are refused a platform to speak - on campuses, including of Ms Rudd.

The new Bill also covers the creation of a free speech champion at regulator the Office for Students (OfS), with the power to issue sanctions.

Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said: It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.

"Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they dont meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

He added: "Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all."

In a statement, Jo Grady from the UCU said the government was using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students.

An OfS spokesperson said: "Free speech and academic freedom are essential elements to effective teaching and research.

"Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.

They added: "We will ensure that the changes that result from proposals expressed in [the] Queens Speech reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law.

Additional reporting by Press Association

Read the rest here:
Government exaggerating threat to freedom of speech to push through new laws, says university union - The Independent

Todd J. Williams| Correspondent

The power of nature prevails in climb to recovery

Laura Waits and Per Hagen developed an outdoor adventure program, Sync Recovery Community, to guide those in recovery to drug-free activities.

Marion Callahan, Bucks County Courier Times

We live in an era of individual expression. You dont have to look very far in our culture to see this. A few minutes spent on social media or watching the late-night talk shows is all it takes to see that contemporary culture not only embraces but encourages the idea that if you feel it, say it, unfiltered never mind the accuracy or what the implications are of what you say.

If you think it,if you feel it, if it is your reaction to a circumstance, event, or other person just say whatever you want, in whatever way you want, with whatever tone you want. That is your right. To be fair, this in fact is a freedom or a right in this land.

After all, the Constitution guarantees the right of expression. The freedom of expression is a core principle of our constitutional republic. We do not censor. We do not stifle. It is an American ideal.

What I am referring to, though, is something different. I am referring to the dangers of unfiltered, unrestrained and unmeasured personal expression:saying things without thought, without considering the truthfulness, the accuracy and the implications of our words.

This is not a wise way to live. Of course,we can say and do whatever we want, but there is a very poignant verse in the Bible where the apostle Paul says,All things are lawful,but not all things are helpful (1 Cor. 10:13). Another way of expressing this is to use a more contemporary axiom, Just because we can do something, doesnt mean we should.

Knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it; knowing when we should do something because it is the best course of action and not just simply because we canthese require judgment. This is the way of wisdom.

It is not a way of repression but a way of restraint, of self control, and of choosing what is best.

The Old Testament book of Proverbs has numerous references to the importance and impact of our words. In Proverbs 17:27, we see that restraint regarding our words says something about our character: Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.

The real question is whether we as a society value the personal character qualities of being knowledgeable and having understanding. Another implication of this passage is that when people do not restrain themselves, they show themselves to be the opposite of having knowledge and understanding.

It is possible to assess the character of people by their lack of verbal restraint. We have all experienced this on a relational level. But it has larger societal and cultural implications that begin with us as individuals on a relational level.

We must also consider the damage done by words expressed without filter or consideration. In Proverbs 12:18 we read, There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Words have the power to inflict pain and wound. They also have the power to bring healing.

This proverb underscores again the character associated with painful words versus healing words. Do we aspire to be rash or wise? If our words are as sword thrusts, inflicting pain on others, we show ourselves to be rash. If our words rather bring healing, we show ourselves to be wise.

The unrestrained and unfiltered expression that we see running rampant in our worldwhether haters on social media or character assassins on late-night talk showssays something about us as a people and our level of tolerance of rashness at best or ourenamormentwith it at worst.

Words matter. Our speech has an impact on those around us, on culture and society and on future generations.It is also true that we are responsible for what we say, when we say it and how we say it. We can choose a different path. We can reject the unfiltered norm of our day and choose the way of self-control, restraint and wisdom.

I often consider what a different world we would be living in if we took full responsibility for our words and considered the power of truthfulness when we disagree and graciousness in the way we talk to our coworkers, our children, our friends and strangers.

Again, Proverbs speaks to this. In Proverbs 16:24 we read, Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. We could use a little of this these days. Our disagreements and divisions are real. Whether personal, political, social, or cultural, we are not of one mind.

This is a reality of life and part of being human. Another part of being human is our ability and inclination to express ourselves. Yet another part of being human is the moral capacity to consider the implications of our expressions, to hold our tongues when appropriate, to consider others, to weigh facts and speak truth and to season our speech with grace and wisdom.

These things are not impossible. We have the capacity. Do we have the desire?

Dr. Todd J. Williams is president of Cairn University in Langhorne Manor. From a Faith Perspective is a weekly column written by members of the local faith communities.

Read the original here:
From a Faith Perspective: We have a right to free speech. But do we use it wisely? - Bucks County Courier Times

MPs on the House of Commons heritage committee agreedtoday to pause a detailed review of the federal government's broadcasting bill while the Department of Justice looks into whether recent amendments violate the free speech rights of social media users.

Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP MPsall voted in favour of asking for a revised "charter statement" on Bill C-10. Such statements are issued by the justice minister to examine the potential impact new legislation may have on Canadians' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion also requests that both Justice Minister David Lametti and Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, along with a panel of experts, appear beforethe committee to discuss the implications of recent amendments to the bill and take questions from committee members.

Today's vote breaks a weeks-long deadlock at the committee and is a loss for the Liberals, who wanted the clause-by-clause review of the legislation to continue while the updated charter statement wasbeing prepared bythe Department of Justice.

Instead, that review has been shelved while the committee waits to see the charter statement and to hear fromthe ministers and experts.

Bill C-10 was introduced by Guilbeaultto bring digital streaming services under the purview of the Broadcasting Act. It would allowthe Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)the country's broadcasting regulatorto require them to contribute to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian content, similar to howthe CRTCregulates radio and TV content now.

The bill came under fireafter the committee removed a clause that would have excluded user-generated content posted to social media sites from CRTC regulation.

The government said the exclusion would have allowed YouTube to escape the same reporting requirements and obligations to contribute to Canadian culture that would have applied to streaming sites like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon.

But legal experts argued the changes gave the CRTC the power to regulate the posts that millions of Canadians upload every day to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTubesomething they saw as a violation of thecharter right to freedom ofexpression.

The Liberals proposed an amendment to the bill last week to clarify the role of the CRTC. The amendment proposed allowing the CRTCto requirethe sitesto make Canadian content more visible to Canadian users.

The amendment failed to mollify critics.

"Guilbeault and the government promised to remove regulation of user generated content by the CRTC. Instead ... it effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place," Michael Geist,a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in internet law, wrote recentlyin his blog.

WhileGuilbeault has insisted that CRTC regulation will apply onlyto professional content posted to platforms that act as broadcasters, he muddied the waters himself over the weekend.

In an interview on CTV's Question Period,Guilbeault appeared to suggest that C-10 would allow the CRTC to impose discoverability regulations on individuals who have large online followings,or who generate significant revenue through their online content. Guilbeault's office laterbacktracked, saying individuals who usesocial media will never be consideredbroadcasters.

At a press conference today, Liberal MP Julie Dabrusinrepeated the Liberal assertion that any CRTC-imposedobligations would only apply to the platforms. Dabrusin said such obligations include:

Dabrusin accused the Conservatives of holding up the committee's work for the past two weeks.

Conservative MPs have been especially vocal in their opposition to C-10 in its current form, saying that it would lead to governmentcensorship of the internet.

During question period in the House of Commons today, MPRachael Harder the Conservatives'digitalgovernment critic accused the Liberals of launching an attack on YouTubers to censor what people post to social media.

Guilbeault responded that the bill is not about what Canadians can or can't post online. He said the bill will make sure big streaming companies "pay their fair share" and make Canadian content more discoverable on their platforms.

See the original post:
MPs agree to legal review of broadcasting bill over free speech concerns - CBC.ca