Monthly Archives: May 2021

The case of Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, a noted Shakespearean scholar and, until recently, the Ronni Lacroute Chair in Shakespeare Studies at Linfield University, has quickly drawn attention to how a university administration and its Board of Trustees can feel entitled to bypass due process and substitute for it corporate protocols that even as such seem ethically problematic. Pollack-Pelzner, who has been a sharp critic of Linfields responses to sexual harassment and who has raised serious charges of anti-Semitism, has been fired for being insubordinate.

As reported in The Oregonian, Pollack-Pelzner is known as being a public advocate for students and faculty who had complained about alleged sexual abuse by board trustees. He has also publicly reported instances of anti-Semitic statements by Linfield president Miles Davis.

In an article about Pollack-Pelzners firing, Inside Higher Ed quotes from an email that Provost Susan Agre-Kippenhan sent to the campus community, explaining that Linfield had taken the extraordinary step of terminating the employment of a member of our faculty for serious breaches of the individuals duty to the institution. This raises the question not only of what Linfield believes an individuals duty to the institution might be but also what duty Linfield, as an institution, has to its faculty, staff and students. These questions cut to the heart of the educational mission.

In this case, the relationship between these obligations is entirely skewed. Linfield has denied Pollack-Pelzner a hearing, it has denied him due process and it has denied him the right to appeal. All on the basis of its own administrative judgment. This case has all the earmarks of a whistle-blower being silenced for being too insistent in their complaints. It is useful to note the American Civil Liberties Union statement on whistle-blowers:

The ACLU has long sought to defend the free speech and privacy rights of public employees. We represent National Security Agency surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden. We strongly support the Free Flow of Information Act (a bill to protect confidential sources) and oppose proposals to limit media contact with elements of the intelligence community. We also work to protect private employees free speech rights, especially in the case of laws limiting labor organizing.

While the First Amendment applies only to state action, the values that animate our right to free speech and free association apply to all of us, regardless of where we work. The marketplace of ideas works only if we are all free to speak vigorously and without fear about the issues of the day. This often happens in the workplace, so employee speech and privacy must be protected.

The universitys charge that Pollack-Pelzner was insubordinate is particularly vague and unconvincing, and the fact that he has supposedly interfered with the universitys administration of its responsibilities is a blatant act of shooting the messenger. For the past two years, Linfield has received only bad press regarding its many poor decisions and its multiple failures to serve its community. These include decisions to fire dozens of faculty without following standard American Association of University Professors procedures, failure to adequately address issues of sexual harassment and edicts to shut down faculty Listservs.

The situation at Linfield became so egregious that earlier this month Linfield faculty voted 59 to 11 to pass a resolution of no confidence in President Davis and David Baca, the universitys board chair. The resolution states in part, The words and actions of President Miles Davis and Chair David Baca have created an intimidating and hostile work environment, harmed members of the Linfield community, and damaged Linfields reputation Attempts to work collaboratively, constructively, and proactively [with Davis and Baca] to address issues of concern have been met with censorship, punishment, secrecy and defamation.

It is clear that Pollack-Pelzners complaints are reacting to, rather that causing, deep and perennial troubles at Linfield. Instead of addressing its own defects and shortcomings, Linfield has terminated Pollack-Pelzner both as a punishment for his publicly holding the university responsible and as a warning to every other member of the faculty.

In its April 28 letter to Linfields president, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, asserts,

Linfields process-free termination of Pollack-Pelzner cannot be reconciled with the robust procedural protections it promises its faculty. It is also difficult to square Linfields actions with the universitys strong policies committing it to protect its faculty members freedom of expression, which shields Pollack-Pelzners speech unless it falls into one of the narrow exceptions to that rule. Linfields express refusal to turn over the matter to independent review by Linfield faculty heightens our concern that the university cannot demonstrate that Pollack-Pelzners comments are unprotected defamation.

FIRE underscores the lack of due process: Linfield has not substantiated any of [its] assertions before a hearing committee.

The case is of special and significant import. If Linfield is able to fire faculty with impunity, it will set a precedent that will eviscerate the foundational principles of both free speech and of faculty governance on college and university campuses.

Im circulating this information in an open letter to collect signatures from all faculty members interested in defending Daniel Pollack-Pelzner and holding Linfield University accountable for the damage it is inflicting to the very idea of faculty governance and due process. This has become an international issue: at the time of this writing, more than 1,600 faculty, of all ranks and from diverse institutions -- and from not only the United States but also Australia, France, Germany, Kuwait, Macao, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom -- have signed this letter of support. I urge you to sign it, too.

More here:
The termination of a scholar threatens free speech and faculty governance (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

The presidential election was still months away, but Gavin Weslee Perry apparently did not like what he saw from some Democrats in Congress, court records show.

The 29-year-old Wichita Falls man took his gripes to Facebook, typing out his frustrations in two posts that he would later claim to regret, including a threat against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to federal court records.

If youre a dem or a part of the establishment in the Democrats side, I view you as a criminal and a terrorist and I advise everyone to Go SOS [shoot on sight] and use live rounds, Perry allegedly wrote in March 2020 on Facebook. Shoot to kill. This is a revolution.

But when Perry was arrested, he told the FBI he didnt do anything wrong; he was just expressing his right to free speech.

Perry is headed to trial Monday in Wichita Falls on a single count of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. He joins several others in North Texas who were arrested on similar charges of threatening members of Congress in the months before and after the Jan. 6 insurrection in Washington, D.C.

A recent New York federal trial that involved a similar case ended last week in a guilty verdict. In that case, Brendan Hunt, 37, posted in a video online in January in which he called for the slaughter of members of Congress prior to Joe Bidens inauguration. Hunt added that hed shoot and kill them himself if he could find a gun.

Hunts lawyers had argued that their client wasnt caught with weapons or any plans to actually commit violence and was just ranting online, according to published reports. But the Brooklyn jury on Wednesday found him guilty.

Like Hunt, Perry is accused of singling out the Democratic House speaker in his online remarks.

Nancy Pelosi is a part of a satanic cult and so are the people who work closely with her. Dems of the establishment will be removed at any cost necessary and yes that means by death, Perry allegedly wrote in another Facebook post.

Perry was indicted on April 7. As of Friday evening, his trial was still scheduled to begin Monday with jury selection.

Civil unrest, racial strife, culture wars and political turmoil leading up to the November presidential election have led to multiple arrests for the posting of threatening words on social media, which has prompted questions about the limits of free speech. Many of those arrested have claimed they were merely expressing political opinion. But legal experts say freedom of speech is not absolute.

Courts have ruled, for example, that fraud, obscenity, incitement to violence, perjury, libel and threats are not entitled to constitutional protection. The Hunt verdict is good news for officials in Bidens Justice Department who are trying to find ways to crack down on the rising threat of domestic terrorism from violent extremist groups.

Dan Guthrie, a former federal and state prosecutor who is now in private practice in Dallas, said verdicts will depend on the specific facts of each case.

A guy having a couple of beers with his buddies who says hes going to go to D.C. to kick a senators behind isnt going to be in danger of prosecution, he said. A guy who makes the same statement on Facebook and is a member of a group that is known to promote violence may not fare so well.

Its not just Donald Trump supporters who are facing charges.

Guy Zachary Klossner, 33, of Denton, was charged in October with several counts of making threats against two Congressmen, in phone calls and via Facebook message. Klossners Facebook posts indicate he is a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vermont.

Klossner pleaded guilty on Thursday to one count of threatening a federal official and remains in custody. His LinkedIn account says he earned a biochemistry degree from the University of North Texas and worked there as a lab technician.

Klossner also worked at UNT as a graduate research assistant in the biology department from 2012 to the end of January 2020, a university spokeswoman said.

Attorneys for Perry and Klossner did not respond to requests for comment.

Proposed jury instructions in the Perry case say prosecutors must prove that the defendant sent the message intending to communicate an actual threat or with the knowledge that it would be viewed as a true threat. That means a real threat and not a joke, idle talk or a careless remark, the filing said.

Despite that interpretation, there is no real litmus test for a true threat, Guthrie said. He added that a defendant must have a guilty mind to be convicted under the federal law used in the Perry case.

Such threats would also have to cause a reasonable person to fear being injured, according to prosecutors. The government says it does not have to prove, however, that Perry intended to carry out the threats.

The Perry investigation began in March 2020 when a concerned citizen reported Perrys social media comments to police, which included threats against Congress and law enforcement, according to court records.

John Coyle, an FBI agent, testified during a hearing last month that he went to a home where Perry was staying to ask him about the posts. Perry acknowledged he wrote the posts in question and told the agent that it was his right to do so, Coyle said during his testimony.

He [Perry] looked at me in the eye and said, You are violating my First Amendment rights and the punishment for that violation is death, Coyle said.

Perry also told the agent the U.S. government was tyrannical and that he did not recognize its authority, according to an FBI complaint. And Perry said he wanted to leave the country and never return, the complaint said.

Coyle testified that he later listened to Perrys jail phone calls to his grandfather, who told his grandson that he had warned him not to say stupid stuff like this. Perry agreed and said he should have listened, the agent said.

At his first court appearance, Perry repeatedly interrupted the prosecutor and the judge and said he was ready to plead guilty, according to a transcript of the proceeding.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal Ray Jr. told Perry multiple times to stop talking and that he was going to appoint him an attorney.

You are holding me against my First Amendment right, Perry said, for saying that other people, people running this country, are terrorists to our constitution and to our freedom, to our (inaudible) values, to our quality of life. I said I think they are terrorists. And at which point when they do become terrorists of this country, we need to do something about it.

Mr. Perry, the judge said, banging his gavel, be quiet.

Later in the hearing, Perry told the judge several times he wanted to plead guilty right away because, I mean I clearly made the posts. Its clearly me, court records show.

Ray had to caution Perry not to make any incriminating statements. Following that court appearance, Perry was sent to a federal Fort Worth medical facility to be evaluated and treated so he could be deemed competent to stand trial, according to court records.

That process took a year due in part to the coronavirus pandemic, authorities said.

Perry appeared in court again on May 24 for a detention hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Boudreau told the judge during the hearing that Perry should remain behind bars until his trial, and he noted that the defendant has a criminal history including felonies, according to court records.

Ray agreed and ordered Perry to remain in custody, saying that he has a history of criminal activity and violence. The judge also cited Perrys lack of stable employment and residence.

Perry, who has also lived in Fort Worth, was convicted in 2012 of misdemeanor assault of a family member involving bodily injury, according to Tarrant County records.

Erin Nealy Cox said in a statement about Perrys case last year when she was the U.S. attorney that while the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not permit the making of death threats against politicians and others.

We will not allow them to threaten our officials physical safety, she said.

Klossner wrote on Facebook in May 2020 that the only good cop is a dead cop. The post also said the only true officer of the law is a corpse wearing a badge.

And in July and September of that year, he threatened to murder two Congressmen, according to his indictment. Klossner did so with the intent to impede, intimidate, interfere with, or retaliate against the Congressmen while engaged in the performance of their official duties, the indictment says.

In plea documents filed on Thursday, Klossner admitted to threatening U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, in an email sent in July 2020. Klossner used the name, Youre F. Dead, when he sent the threatening message, which said: I intend to kill your family. Youre [expletive] dead, Yoho, court records show.

Klossner sent the message from his work email in Denton, authorities said. He later admitted to sending the email because he was angry, court records show.

Another North Texas case involving threats has also resulted in a conviction.

Daniel Austin Dunn, 30, of Denton County pleaded guilty in December to making threats for encouraging violence against police in social media posts during the George Floyd protests in downtown Dallas last summer. He is currently awaiting sentencing.

Dunn, a former Marine from Bartonville, was a sympathizer of the antigovernment boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois extremist movement, according to prosecutors. Like some of those charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection, Dunn used violent rhetoric against law enforcement, saying in one post, They should all be lined up and shot, court records show.

Two alleged Capitol rioters from North Texas also have been charged with making threats.

Troy Anthony Smocks, 58, of Dallas, allegedly wrote on Parler that patriots like him should launch an armed hunt for Democrats, tech executives and other traitors at the Capitol.

And Garret Miller, 34, of Richardson, is accused of storming the Capitol building and making death threats against members of Congress and Capitol Police. Miller called for the assassination of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic representative from New York, and he threatened Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Instagram, saying we are coming for you, the FBI says.

Both men have pleaded not guilty and remain in custody awaiting trial.

Link:
Free speech or crime? North Texas man accused of threatening Nancy Pelosi heads to trial - The Dallas Morning News

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The state does not own the rights of its citizens. It's an inversion of the relationship between citizen and government to think so

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Freedom of speech is not the high holy ideal it once was. Freedom of expression, the wider concept, expression as thought, speech, art, performance and protest, is likewise no longer the clear and unchallengeable central core value of our democracies.

However imperfectly, the modern democracies were built around these concepts, their primal values. They have, alas, often been broken, but until very recent days, whenever they were violated, especially by state force, a genuine, near reflex response was outrage and condemnation. Their existence as ideals, to be relentlessly pursued and deeply cherished, supplied a guard against such violations, something close to a taboo. Those who attempted to degrade them, used power or status to walk around or through them, or sought to override the protections enshrined in the Charter, brought pariah status upon themselves.

As an ideal, free expression has been ever-present as a guiding star to the proper operations of any democracy. The freedom of the individual, and thereby his or her dignity as a human being and citizen depends emerges only when these rights are seen as belonging to the individual human being, owned by the individual, are not never to be diminished or circumscribed by the state, or the mob. And, more relevantly in the present moment, never through the actions and mood swings of the current and shallow ideologies of progressive politics.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The state does not own the rights of its citizens. Its an inversion of the relationship between citizen and government to think so. Citizens give orders to governments. Citizens are the ultimate rulers, which any definition of the word democracy will affirm: demos people; cracy -rule.

Yet we have experienced a grave dilution of how these rights are presently understood, in parallel with a grave dilution of respect for them. The rot began and was sadly nursed in the very institutions by those which should most defend and explain them. Our decaying universities.

Was it not the universities who pioneered the idea of free speech zones on campus? This was the granting of some small and marked piece of campus territory where students, whom the university decreed might say something offensive or insensitive or perceived as discriminatory (unwoke is the current terms for all these categories) would be forced, under edict and threat of expulsion to go to these islands, and only there be allowed to speak their minds. All else was forbidden space. Allowed speech is the antithesis of free speech, and designated spaces wherein that allowed speech could be voiced, a surrender of intellectualism, and a woeful instance of the cowardice of elite institutions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It was the universities which played midwife to the new anti-intellectual doctrines such as speech is violence with its reverse twin dogma that violence is speech. They spread the intellectual acid of relativism. The most faithful guardians, so we thought, of unrestrained thinking became the efficient and sly agents of its curtailment.

Even just a few years ago almost everyone could reference the great negative power the great churches of the West once held, the power to excommunicate, set up heretic-hunting inquisitions, draw up lists of which books could be read, and carried to stake or dungeon those who would challenge its power and self-declared infallibility. How the churches have been scorned for treading on such freedoms.

There is no stake or dungeon today, merely cancel culture. However Twitter mobbing and cries of racism or homophobia, declamations for woke bishops are fine 21st century versions of the same.

The 20th century in particular supplied horrendous illustrations of what governments who suspend or absolutely deny the right to free speech, thought, or gathering. We have seen how very quickly descend into mass persecution and mass murder. The Gulag Archipelago is out there for all to read. Animal Farm and 1984 are still available.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Or, to take a home a recent example, when the employees of a publishing house in Canada revolt over the printing of their most prized author, Jordan Peterson. They actually wept, they wept at the thought that a publishing house was going to publish a book. A book they had not read and could not have read, But still they knew that it would be traumatizing (that word is now pure lexical junk) and offensive and hurtful. Let us hope that none of these internet neurasthenics ever stubs a toe. What words will be left for him except to deplore the white supremacy of geologically stationary rocks and stones?

Throw away core concepts and all that is left is silliness and virtue-signalling.

To show how ludicrous and servile weve become, not that long ago Pepe le Pew, a poor misguided personable amorous French skunk, was sent to the cartoon Gulag. For pursuing a cat.

I skip hundreds of examples of woke Puritanisms descent into politically correct censorship. Only because the examples are legion, just too epidemical to report in the meagre spaces of a column. They require a modern Gibbon.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Some or all of the foregoing should be top of mind as we see our own government moving into regulating the internet, and putting the posts and performances of any and every Canadian under its righteous regulatory eye. Theres much more to say on that.

For now, professor Michael Geist, a student of internet communications, in his many (currently permitted) observations, offers the strongest warnings of what this prospective legislation means. And for a stern and particular condemnation of the insolent initiative read Terence Corcorans detailed condemnation of it.

I trust colleague Corcoran realizes hes gnawing away at Canadas social cohesion. But he is such an independent fiend, he may not.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled.Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter, NP Platformed the cure for cancel culture.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Posted Newsletter will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

More here:
Rex Murphy: We care nothing for free speech Trudeau plan to regulate the internet is but a symptom - National Post

Damian Wilson

is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.

is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.

The UK is turning its broadcast regulator into the Hatefinder General, with a new law compelling social media companies to enforce an authoritarian crackdown on our behaviour thats unprecedented in any democracy.

As the British nanny state widens its scope with the governments new Online Safety Bill it is a sign that the German concept of wehrhafte Demokratie or militant democracy has arrived on our shores, dictating that some of our rights are sacrificed in the interests of order.

Once enshrined in law, the bill will ensure that true, online freedom of speech will follow the dial-up modem and those once omnipotent AOL subscription CDs into the dustbin of internet history. According to the authors of Youre on Mute, a briefing document from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the governments plans will restrict online free speech to a degree almost unprecedented in any democracy.

But I have to admit, Im a bit sceptical how this brand new plan is going to work. So far, it seems that Ofcom, the broadcaster regulator, will be asked to draw up a code of practice setting out the rules which social media companies will be legally obliged to follow. Ofcom will then enforce the rules with fines of up to 18 million or 10% of turnover levied on those who break them.

And what are the rules? Well, taking the guide to what constitutes hate speech as a starting point, it means not saying anything that might spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age. Phew!

Under the new bill, however, alongside the no-go areas, it will also become an offence to deliberately create and disseminate false and/or manipulated information that is intended to deceive and mislead audiences, either for the purposes of causing harm, or for political, personal or financial gain.

As well, the yet-to-be-revealed code will also insist that legal but harmful activity be blocked. How harmful that might be is to be judged upon the psychological impact it might cause. So be careful of those clown pics youre posting on Facebook.

If someone told me these were the rules governing access to the internet in China, I would not bat an eyelid, so authoritarian and freedom-smothering they are even at first glance. But look at them a little closer and, well, theyre even scarier.

Ofcoms list of hate speech minefields now includes one of the gender gestapos favourite areas of victimhood gender reassignment, apparently putting a cordon around it so it may no longer be debated and also political, personal or financial gain.

So how is this ever going to work in the realm of political campaigns, where the whole point is to offer flip-side views diametrically opposed to each other? As the authors of the FSU briefing point out: No UK Government or Opposition should support proposals which give internet censors, whether this be a state regulator or fact-checkers employed by social media companies, the power to censor the sometimes-offensive free speech which is part of any democracy. Political parties should also note that this will inevitably result in the censorship of their own activists.

While Ofcom will act as Hatefinder General in policing its code of practice, the government is looking to tech giants like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to rise to the challenge and monitor their users for breaches of the new rules.

You may have noticed that these are the very same companies the UK continually fines and rails against over non-payment of taxes. Now theyre being asked to step up to a massive new role overseeing the way British people treat each other. Who dreamt up this model and thought it was a good idea?

Digging further, what exactly counts as disinformation or even misinformation under the new codes, which seem specifically drawn up with Covid-19 in mind and the various controversies of its origins, vaccine efficacy and countless hoaxes?

The internet is full of lies, we all know that. Not all are deliberate, but you could be caught out under the codes definition of misinformation inadvertently spreading false information by sharing something that is not factually correct.

That this is something the government feels it needs to legislate is extraordinary. The whole thing should have been binned once Theresa May who introduced the idea was waved out the door of Downing Street.

Because what we need to help us navigate to the truth online is not less but more information. Its the easy access to a diversity of views from one end of the scale to the other that is the whole point of the internet. It is not a problem that needs solving. Otherwise, we are stuck with a sanitised, government-approved version of truth that has ticked all the boxes and is now considered safe for human consumption even while some of what we are being asked to swallow is just too much.

And why are we asking tech companies to monitor this? Its mad. The FSU has thrown up an interesting insight it gleaned from the White Paper on the proposed bill as the government extolled the virtues of YouTubes censorship rules.

In its efforts to counter disinformation during the coronavirus pandemic, YouTube decided that any posts on its platform that offered a view that flew in the face of the opinions of the World Health Organisation would be taken offline in a bid to counter disinformation, including junk cures.

That made the worldview of the WHO the only version of the truth. And that is doubly weird because, in its efforts to suck up to China, the organisation now officially recognises traditional Chinese herbal medicine known everywhere else as quack cures alongside evidence-based medicine.

So we have the situation where YouTube is cracking down on junk cures expounded by users, while simultaneously promoting them through slavish adherence to the policy directives of the WHO. And now we want YouTube to take responsibility for the safety of their users across Britain? Im not so sure this state-sponsored, tech giant-monitored censorship is such a good idea.

It allows those with no moral authority to trample over our freedoms while attempting to convince us it is for the greater good, while at the same time it patronises us, wraps debate up in a cosy blanket and whispers night-night and rocks us to sleep protected from a world where, god forbid, we might be asked to think for ourselves.

Theres rubbish on the internet? So what? Lets talk about it.

As the FSU says, This is precisely why we have freedom of speech: to encourage debates about controversial issues, including the expression of unorthodox ideas that challenge what people currently believe to be true.

This discourse is how we progress and the government needs to pause and think about that. Because the Online Safety Bill, in terms of that precious freedom of speech, is a retrograde step.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

View original post here:
The end of free speech: Why is Britain handing huge new powers of censorship to tech giants to control what we write and say? - RT