Monthly Archives: February 2022

By BOB BIRD

In the recent debate with former Alaska State Sen. John Coghill, a true gentleman if ever there was one, I could not broach all of the flaws that exist in our current state constitution. One of them is Article 1, Section 5:

Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

When one looks at the federal Bill of Rights and in most of our own in the Alaska constitution, they are worded with restrictions placed upongovernment, rather than granting permission tocitizens. The rights then are seen as pre-existing, given to us by Natural Law from the Almighty.

No law shall be made and No person shall be denied is how all of them should properly and justly read. It is easily understood that were it not this way, we would suffer under the rule, The Government giveth, and the Government taketh away.

But read Section 5 of Alaskas Constitution again. That is precisely what it does it grants us permission, with a finger-wagging warning that should we abuse it, we would pay a penalty. It goes without saying that abuse of the freedom of speech was already thoroughly ensconced in American statutes and Anglo-Saxon common law, and was not necessary to be included.

Even during the debates held in 1955, this was seen as a danger. None other than the last living convention survivor, and the Dean of Alaskan liberals Vic Fisher, understood that the wording was fraught with potential mischief. He was assured that Idahos state constitution had similar wording and had therefore been tested as if it could never be abused in the future.

The liberal Mr. Fisher was on to something important in 1955. I wonder what his thoughts are today regarding the abuse that is now ongoing in the state legislature with the heroic Rep. David Eastman.

But the template of our vaunted state Constitution of 1955 came out of a liberal think-tank associated with the Rockefeller created-and-funded University of Chicago, called the Public Administration Service, or PAS. Their various officers, who were Socialist New Deal retreads, were even invited to advise, observe, and speak at the 1955 confab in Fairbanks.

A word on the term holocaust, which Eastman used in reference to something other than the Jewish Holocaust. I hate to say it, but the term seems to have been patented by the liberals, and I am here to inform them that it is not.

The prolife movement has used it for nearly 50 years, and willneverstop using the term. If it doesnt actually parallel the Jewish holocaust, it is because the body count of aborted babies in the US alone now exceeds 10 times the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis.

But they dont count, you see. And why?

Because the liberals told us so.

The politically conservative Jews, such as Andrew Barr, the secretary of the UKsJews for Justice,are also warning us that we are going down a terrible path with cancel culture. If the witches brew that is the Democratic Party succeeds in ousting Rep. Eastman, the rest of us will be next in our workplace, schools and churches.

House Speaker Louise Stutes and House Majority Leader Chris Tuck are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Legislative bodies must extend courtesy to their confreres. If you want to pass bills, todays opponent is tomorrows ally. Throwing bean-balls at the head of conservative mavericks by inviting childish and bed-wetting witnesses, eager to throw mud through guilt by association is a threat to the other members, and is deliberately meant to be. It will result in an end to legislative comity. It might eventually lead to a modern version of Sen. Preston Brooks and the caning of Sen. Charles Sumner.

Aside from having to modify Article 1, Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution, it appears that the hellbent, dangerous, and evil witch hunters in the state legislature will have to be voted out ifwe can restore election integrity.

Should Eastman suffer some sort of legislative discipline, or expulsion, a bone-chilling nightmare will descend on us here in the Last Frontier.

To quote Donald Trumps speech: They werent really after me, they were afteryou. I was just in their way.

Bob Bird is chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show, the Talk of the Kenai on KSRM radio, Kenai.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
Bob Bird: Attack on Eastman is a direct attack on freedom of speech - Must Read Alaska

By Christine Jordan SextonFor FloridaPolitics.com

Over objections from some members that the bill could protect internet grifters and neuter Floridas health care regulatory boards, a House panel on Monday voted 12-5 to pass a bill that protects doctors freedom of speech on the internet.

The legislation is aimed at preventing a crackdown on doctors accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19, a trend that has been occurring across the country and drawing scrutiny from regulators who say such actions are unethical.

Before passingHB 687, members of the House Professions and Public Health Subcommittee beat back a pair of amendments offered by Rep.Carlos Guillermo Smith, including an amendment to delete from current law the gag clause that prevents physicians from discussing guns with their patients.

While a federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the so-called Docs v. Glocks law, the language remains in two sections of state statutes. Smiths proposed amendment struck the language, which cannot be enforced.

Smith also offered an amendment to the bill that would have ensured freedom of speech protections also apply to Department of Health physicians. Smith is from the same county where a top DOH official was removed after raising concerns with the departments vaccination rates in an email

Rep.Anna Eskamanispoke in favor of the amendment saying that the state cannot pick and choose which speech to protect.

Let the Department of Health follow the priorities established in this legislation, she said.

While the committee members shot down both of Smiths amendments, lawmakers agreed to take up an amendment to HB 687 drafted by committee staff that removes the $1.5 million fine the Department of Health could face if it violated a practitioners right to free speech.

The proposed committee bill would continue to make it illegal for the state to reprimand, sanction, or revoke or threaten to revoke a license, certificate or registration of a health care practitioner unless it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the free speech leads to the direct physical harm of a patient. But the department wouldnt have to pay the steep fine for violating the law.

Bill sponsor Rep.Brad Draketold committee members the bill does not offer physicians any freedom of speech protections they are not offered today.

Drake said he filed the bill after hearing about physicianJoel Rudman. Rudman testified in committee that the American Board of Family Medicine tried to take action against him after he made comments about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Gov.Ron DeSantisthrew his support behind HB 687 and its Senate counterpart,SB 1184, earlier this month.

The bills are not supported by organized medicine.

The legislation comes at a time when theFederation of State Medical Boardshas reported an uptick in complaints against licensed medical professionals for disseminating false or misleading information. The organization found 67% of medical boards reported an increase in complaints and 21% had taken some sort of disciplinary action.

The federation has come out in support of scrutinizing medical professionals amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

We are encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients, said Dr.Humayun Chaudhry, the president and CEO of the federation said in a December statement.

Christine Jordan Sexton is a Tallahassee-based health care reporter who focuses on health care policy and the politics behind it. Medicaid, health insurance, workers compensation, and business and professional regulation are just a few of the things that keep me busy.

Original post:
Guns, COVID-19 and the internet: House panel Oks 'freedom of speech bill - Clay Today Online

Most people know, or think they know, that the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech.

Well, yes and no. What the First Amendment to the Constitution actually says is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law ... means that the government cannot criminalize speech, and we all know that there are exceptions, the most well known being falsely shouting Fire! where that would create a panic and possible loss of life.

We have laws criminalizing lying when one has sworn to tell the truth (perjury), and a somewhat obscure law making it a crime to lie to the FBI. I didnt even know about this one until 2002 Louisiana state Insurance Commissioner James Brown was charged and convicted for it. So if the FBI ever wants to talk to you, about anything, either decline or have a lawyer present should anything you tell them turn out to be untrue.

There is also a long history of cases in which the government has tried to limit political speech. In recent years, rarely has the government prevailed, and if it did, it was later overturned.

As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated in Mills v. State of Alabama, Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.

As for dangerous political speech, in Schenck v. U.S., the court articulated the clear and present danger standard, but in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court modified it to speech advocating violence that was imminent and probable for speech to be curtailed.

This constitutional provision does not stop private actors from stifling speech. The biggest offenders are employers, who often place restrictions on what you can say about the company, at risk of firing. Bad news, but no state action, so no violation of free speech in the constitutional sense, unless, of course, you work for the government. Then you may be covered.

The difference bears on the current kerfuffle regarding free speech over Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan, who has hosted people who give out incorrect medical information on COVID-19, which, if believed, could result in deaths. Some musicians whose music is on Spotify asked that their work be taken off.

Some people screamed, Censorship! Others said, Good for them! Cries of Free speech! rang on both sides.

This is not a free speech issue. The podcaster has not been arrested. Nothing he did violates the law. The musicians who object are exercising their rights to not be associated with his content.

This brings me back to what free speech means. If you believe the First Amendment does not apply to lies, well, yes, mostly it does. And if you argue that Rogans right to free speech is being curtailed, no, it is not. We are allowed to speak as we please, even if what we say isnt true, but we are not immunized from the consequences of what we say.

The late writer Christopher Hitchens said in his memoir, Hitch 22, that one of the main reasons he decided to become an American citizen was his respect for the protections of speech, and the press, in our First Amendment, protections not explicitly provided in his native Great Britain.

Lets not misconstrue what these great rights mean.

Now retired, J. Michael Malec of Albany formerly worked as a legislative lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana.

Read more:
Commentary: What the First Amendment does and what it doesn't do - Albany Times Union

When we think of freedom of speech, the spoken word is usually what comes to mind. But the First Amendment of the federal Constitution (and, hence, Article II, section 7 of Montanas Constitution) also protect symbolic speech.

Symbolic speech is non-verbal action that clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it. It can take the form of public protests, such as sit-ins and marches, demonstrations, wearing buttons, armbands or clothing items such as t-shirts, nudity, flag-waving, flag-burning, burning draft cards and bras, braille, sign language and even non-criminal actions that others might find offensive (the universal one finger salute), to name a few.

My friend, Alan Nicholson, and I were exchanging emails, and he raised an interesting question:

Could the right to vote be an exercise of free speech? I believe that Alan is correct, voting is the exercise of free speech. I suggest that it is a form of symbolic speech.

One commentator put it this way: Voting is an act of pure expression. It is one of the most consequential expressive acts in a persons life, when a voice becomes an action, and those actions dictate how we are governed.

Another author states: It seems like an obvious proposition that a citizen registering to vote or casting a ballot is engaging in free speech, a fundamental right entitled to full protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This commentator notes, however, that the US Supreme Court rarely interprets the regulation of voting as it does other regulation of speech that is, with the most stringent form of review, strict scrutiny, applying robust First Amendment law.

Ironically, this from the Court that determined in Citizens United that money equals speech. However, keep in mind a fundamental principle of constitutional law: under its own constitution, a state can provide more protection of a right protected under the federal constitution; but a state cannot provide less protection.

With that principle in mind, assume that registering to vote, filling out a ballot (either mailed or at a polling place) and casting that ballot are actions that are, at the very least, forms of symbolic free speech an expressive non-verbal action that clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it.

Then, add to that the mandates and prohibitions of Montanas Article II, section 13, which states: All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. One could hardly craft a stronger protection of the right to vote a constitutional guarantee that all elections must be free and open and prohibiting any civil power (including the legislature, of course) from interfering to prevent the exercise of this right.

Thus, reading together the rights in Articles II, section 7 (free speech and expression) and section 13 (right of suffrage) it is clear (as Alan also observed) that under Montana constitutional law, the right to vote must be protected with no less rigor than is the right of free speech and expression. That is, that both rights, being fundamental rights, any restrictions on the right to vote must be subjected to free speech strict scrutiny analysis.

To that point, Montanas right of free speech proclaims, in pertinent part that: No law shall be passed

impairing the freedom of speech or expression.

Voting being a form of speech and expression means that no law shall be passed impairing the right to vote. And the mandates and prohibitions of Article II, section 13 double-down on that point!

There is simply no constitutional basis by which the legislature, the governor or any public official or branch of government can impair or interfere with Montanans right of suffrage. No law shall be passed .

This article was originally published as: Voting is Free Speech.

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

Excerpt from:
Right to vote - The News International

Introduction

On 12 January 2010, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (the Act) came into force and, with it, the end of the offences of seditious libel, defamatory libel and obscene libel in England and Wales. Writers, publishers and free-speech advocates celebrated the Act as an historic victory and reminded naysayers that criminal libel had long been used by the state as a cudgel against satirists, incendiaries, malcontents and revolutionaries alike.[1]

Criminal libel is the collective term for a range of offences, all of which relate to the publication of defamatory material in permanent form (as opposed to spoken words or gestures). While criminal libel fell out of use during the 20th century, it continued to exist under the laws of England and Wales and, according to some, this helped legitimise its more active use in overseas jurisdictions.

For repressive governments, criminal-defamation laws have been deployed to silence critics and commentators the threat of imprisonment and a criminal record has a chilling effect on press activity and can deter or inhibit investigative journalists. Having well-publicised criminal-defamation laws can keep opponents quiet, as opposed to more overt methods, such as detaining them or using violence.

The manner in which criminal libel can be used by undemocratic regimes was part of the rationale for section 73 of the Act, which abolished criminal libel laws in England and Wales. Based on the sweeping impact of this section, the government clearly subscribed to the view that this kind of offence has no place in a vibrant democracy. In the words of former Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Justice, Claire Ward:

Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasnt seen as the right it is today The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.[2]

However, the world is a different place than it was ten years ago. Today, anyone can set up a website, purport to report on the news and carry out character assassinations online (all while remaining relatively anonymous). Arguably, new checks and balances are needed on free speech. The Online Safety Bill (the Bill) (currently in draft-form) is the governments answer to the wild-west online. With this Bill, the government is seeking to address the fact that misinformation and harmful content is now rife online.

Perhaps most notably, the Law Commission has suggested incorporating new criminal offences into the Bill. These include the offences of sending knowingly false communications and making hoax calls to the emergency services.[3] The introduction of these new harm-based communications offences, which regulate what people can and cannot say, has aggrieved the same advocates who applauded the Coroners and Justice Act in 2009.[4] According to one organisation, the Bill poses a greater threat to freedom of speech in the UK than any other law in living memory.[5] Strong divergent views on this topic raise various questions should the criminal law be used to regulate freedom of expression? Do criminal defamation laws have a place in todays ultra-connected world, where misinformation is spread with such ease?

The right to free speech

It is widely recognised that defamation and misinformation laws are necessary to protect our society and the people within it. Just as physically attacking someone carries legal consequences, so too should spreading harmful lies about them. However, such laws (whether civil or criminal in nature) do infringe the right to freedom of expression, one of our fundamental human rights, as outlined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR). This right is framed in the following terms:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

In the 1976 Strasbourg case Handyside v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights provided guidance on the scope of Article 10, confirming that it protects the right to say things that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.[6] With that said, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. The legislation itself states that interference with this right may sometimes be appropriate. Article 10(2) of the ECHR states that interference may be justified in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.[7]

A negotiation of the right to free speech is always ongoing and its parameters depend (to an extent) on the zeitgeist and what society is prepared to accept. For example, in the recent Duchess of Sussex case, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) argued that Lord Justice Warby had given inadequate weight to the newspapers Article 10 rights and Thomas Markles right to reply. According to ANL, publishing large portions of the Duchesss letter was necessary to correct inaccuracies about the letter that were published in a People magazine article.

However, in its judgment on 2 December 2021, the Court of Appeal held that the disclosures were manifestly excessive.[8] According to the Court of Appeal, the true purpose of ANLs articles was to reveal to the world the full content of a sensational letter written by the Duchess to her estranged father shortly after her wedding. The core of this judgment was that ANLs right to freedom of expression could legitimately be infringed in order to protect the Duchess of Sussexs right to privacy.

Criminal libel

As the right to free speech is not absolute, a natural question is whether it ought to be regulated by the criminal law. In exploring this point, its instructive to look at countries where defamation is still treated as a criminal matter. When defamation falls within the remit of the criminal law, governments can (and do) go beyond fining people for what they say some countries imprison citizens for it.[9]

For example, Thailand has one of the worlds strictest defamation regimes, which insulates its monarchy from criticism. Under section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, the so-called royal defamation law, criticising certain members of the royal family can result in a prison sentence of 15 years.[10] The legislation reads as follows:

Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.

Bucking the trend of many other countries, this royal defamation law has been enforced strictly in recent years. In 2017, a Bangkok military court sentenced a man to 35 years imprisonment for sharing Facebook posts that were deemed to deride the royal family.[11] Over the course of 2020, pro-democracy rallies escalated in Thailand, leading to the arrest and charging of over 150 Thai citizens under section 112. Section 112 was a focal point for Thai protestors, who argued that abolishing this offence does not equate to overthrowing their much-revered monarchy. [12]

Criminal defamation laws can also be deployed by private entities to powerful effect. In 2008, an Indonesian woman emailed several friends telling them that a hospital had misdiagnosed her with dengue fever when she actually had the mumps. Her friends posted this complaint to Facebook and, following further circulation on social media, the hospital filed a defamation claim against her. This case made it to the Indonesia Supreme Court, at which stage the defendant was convicted of libel under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law. While the defendant received a six-month suspended prison sentence, the law allows for jail time of up to six years for this offence.[13]

Conclusions that may be drawn from these sorts of cases are that (1) defamation laws should be narrowly drawn (2) defamation should only give rise to a civil cause of action and (3) criminalising libel is perhaps a step too far. Freedom of speech is widely seen as a vital safeguard against tyranny as it creates space for citizens to criticize their government, state bodies and political parties. The importance of free speech to governmental oversight is reflected in the fact that, in England and Wales, governmental bodies cannot bring a defamation claim. This rule was confirmed in a 1992 case, Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd the House of Lords held that the ability of citizens to critique their government without fear of reprisal is essential to democracy.[14]

Conclusion

With the aforementioned Bill, we can see UK legislators attempting to strike a balance between protecting free speech and making the internet a truly safe place. While some see further regulation of online content as long overdue, others see introducing criminal offences that regulate the transmission of ideas as a step too far.

A recent parliamentary report (published by a committee on 14 December 2021) argued that certain definitions within the Bill would benefit from more precise wording. The report expressed concerns about the definition of harmful content and a person of ordinary sensibilities.[15] The report quoted the analysis of journalist Matthew dAncona, who spoke at a parliamentary committee meeting. Mr dAncona said as follows:

I think that with words like harm and safety there is a slippage or a kind of semantic mission creep going on in their use. We used to talk about safety, and what we really meant was physical safety. Now, when people talk about safety, they often mean convenience or comfort. It is not the task of democratic legislators to make people feel comfortable. I think that is stretching the job description.[16]

For better or worse, defamation and the right to transmit ideas remain dynamic areas of the law. For example, in November 2018 the Maldives Parliament passed a Bill to repeal the Anti-Defamation and Freedom of Expression Act 2016, which had re-criminalised defamation.[17] The oscillation in Maldives legislation and the ongoing debate around the UKs Online Safety Bill illustrates a key point that the right to free speech and how it should be regulated will likely continue to be fought over.

See the original post:
Defamation, free speech and the criminal law - Lexology

First Amendment rights on the University of Iowa campus have been violated.

Recently, *The Daily Iowan* sat down with University of Iowa President Barbara Wilson to discuss, among other things, her thoughts on the new mandatory Freedom of Speech training on campus. Wilson was quoted as praising the training by saying it reminds us what our efforts should be around encouraging open dialogue, even if its sometimes hurtful and difficult and involves conflict.

Further,Wilson said that there will exist a tension between the legal underpinnings of the First Amendment and our ability to make sure people feel like they belong here [on campus].

The DI editorial board did not share Wilsons praise for the new training, and instead took it as an opportunity to attack Iowa Republicans hypocritical free speech platform. Lumping recent university and statewide events together into one piece, the editorial board decried Republicans for taking a freedom of speech for me, but not for thee stance. This includes mandatory training.

However, those close to what has happened at the College of Dentistry and the College of Public Health understand that this is hardly the case. The new Freedom of Speech training is about the First Amendment because First Amendment rights on campus have been violated. Both details of these two cases are public knowledge and uniquely hit on the tension Wilson mentioned.

Instead of exploring this tension or doing a myriad of other things in the spirit of honest journalistic inquiry, the editorial board squandered an opportunity to use its voice by simply blaming Republicans. In other words, the board did nothing in its editorial to lead readers into open dialogue with alternate viewpoints. This makes me believe that though the First Amendment is plastered on the wall of [their] newsroom, the DI editorial board needs a refresher like all of us, too.

-Jacob Olson, Iowa City resident

Read more here:
Letter to the Editor | We need First Amendment training - UI The Daily Iowan

23 February 2022

Good afternoon, everyone! I am just a few weeks old as the new U.S. Ambassador to Poland. I am thrilled that this event is one of my first public speaking engagements.

American and European democracies are vibrant, percolating culture plates of ideas because of media freedom. Thank you, thank you, to the organizers of this event, for elevating this key topic.

Thank you so much Bartosz for the warm introduction! We met when we were slightly younger, since you and I are still such young guys! Seriously,you were a respected correspondent in Washington, D.C., sharing Americas story in Poland.

Now all these years later, we both find ourselves in Poland. Two D.C. fans of yours, my late father Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jan Nowak Jezioranski, so respected your work and would have loved to see us together now.

Id also like to acknowledge and congratulate Jamil Anderlini on becoming Editor-in-Chief at Politico Europe. Hes one of the many talented and experienced speakers youll hear from during this Summit.

I remember back in 2019 when he hosted me and a group of students from the University of Virginia at the Hong Kong Press club. Your message to us on media freedom and the rule of law is all the more relevant today.

I am concerned about the increase of attacks on freedom of the press in Hong Kong. We must continue to urge authorities in Hong Kong and the PRC to respect free speech and let journalists safely do their jobs. This topic will be part of a panel discussion that Im looking forward to.

Its no secret that ideas, expression, and the truth is under attack around the globe. That attack takes many forms.

Members of the media face violence, arbitrary detention, or worse. Baseless lawsuits designed to chill speech have skyrocketed.

Digital threats like online and direct harassment are the norm. Journalists are heroes for continuing to tell their stories, against tremendous odds.

It takes courage; it takes guts. Its something Ive seen firsthand from my sister, Mika Brzezinski. Shes been a journalist for forty years.

She has faced intimidation, shes been bullied, and these days that criticism comes at lighting fast speed. There are social media comments Mika has received that are so vile I cant even bring myself to read them out loud.

But my sister, a true warrior, has never let that deter her from telling stories that matter.

Where did she get that bravado? Poland is one place I do not have to reach for the answer: from my Dad.

I am so proud my late father Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke truth to power for his entire career, for his ideas, for his advocacy. He too was a warrior.

I remember the reaction to his call for ending US involvement in Iraq. He was literally told, no yelled at, by friends and colleagues that since he was not born in the U.S. but instead a naturalized citizen, that he had a special obligation to support the war in Iraq.

But, he wrote opinion pieces for the LA Times, he spoke to NPR, he went to Congress. He didnt stop talking about disengagement. That taught his kids a valuable lesson: to always keep fighting for the truth and what you believe in.

Of course, another hero I must mention is investigative journalist Carl Bernstein. Hes a regular guest on my sisters show Morning Joe.

Lucky for us he also is speaking at the conclusion of this Summit. Nearly 50 years ago Bernstein, alongside Bob Woodward, untangled the Watergate conspiracy that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974.

He won a Pulitzer Prize for his relentless efforts in the face of intimidation. Hes still at it too; Carl just released a new book, Chasing History: A Kid in the Newsroom.

I cant begin to understand the pressure Carl was under at the time, but I do know what its like telling a story that the world needs to know.

Three decades ago, when I was a Fulbright scholar in Poland I wrote a book, The Struggle for Constitutionalism in Poland. I wrote it just after the fall of communism and examined the role of the rule of law in Polands re-entry into European democracy.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press were an integral part of that struggle. Thanks to Fulbright, one of Americas greatest platforms for engaging the world, I had the chance to observe and write about challenges that became manifest as constitutionalism was taking root in Poland, with respect for enduring constitutional arrangements being a central test of the effective operation and growth of liberal democracy.

Fast forward 30 years. Today in 2022, the discussion about press freedom in Poland continues. In the past several years Polands ranking in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index has dropped from 18th to 64th.

Thats not good folks! Poland has worked for decades to foster a vibrant and free media. During the Solidarity era, Poland was identified around the world with the fight for freedom of expression.

I would like to thank Polish President Andrzej Duda for taking an important step by vetoing the so-called Lex TVN bill, a bill that would have limited foreign media ownership in the country and harmed the most watched independent news organization in Poland. Thank you, President Duda.

My personal hero, President Joe Biden, is thankful as well. He recognizes the integral role a free press plays in building a prosperous, resilient and free society because, and I quote, Journalists uncover the truth, check the abuse of power, and demand transparency from those in power. They are indispensable to the functioning of democracy.

And right now, I can think of two places where this work is desperately needed, and where Poland is an important partner: Ukraine and Belarus.

The buildup of Russian troops along Ukraines borders made an already risky job for journalists even more difficult. The United States has been steadfast in working towards de-escalation.

One way to do that is by helping to get the truth out there. Journalists, thats where you come in. Our colleagues at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine have worked with local partners to organize press tours for international journalists, to tell the stories that matter, the stories that the world needs to hear.

Last month, six Polish journalists participated in the tour. Heres just some of what they uncovered.

Powerful. More of these tours are planned in the coming months. We will continue to arm journalists with the tools they need to tell their stories.

Im pleased to note that we are doing this in Belarus too, alongside the Polish government and others. Im so proud to say the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Poland is helping support the work of several independent Belarusian media outlets.

These organizations have had their headquarters in Poland for years due to Lukashenkas repression. They were forced to move most of their Belarus-based journalists and staff out of the country.

This comes after the brutal crackdown on media freedom following the disputed Belarus presidential election in August of 2020.

Under the Lukashenka regime, Belarus has become the most dangerous country in Europe for journalists. The Belarusian Association of Journalists and Viasna, a human rights organization in Minsk, are tracking political prisoners held by the regime.

They list 33 media members, with many others detained just for subscribing to or commenting on media. Nearly every day, new media outlets are being labeled as extremists. This war on independent media has to stop.

Despite all of this oppression, Belarusian journalists havent given up. That they still exist and can deliver truth to the people of their country is no small success.

These journalists, and the people they serve, have hope that they will be able to return one day to a free and democratic Belarus. The United States stands firmly by their side.

Im proud that we have continued to work together with likeminded countries, such as Poland, to advocate for journalists who play such an integral role in the democratic process. You are in fact pillars that support the entire system and a prerequisite for the rule of law. Its all connected.

This of course is an ever-evolving issue. The global debate about freedom of speech now includes the role of disinformation and misinformation spread by governments and nongovernmental actors alike.

There is no shortage of special interests, some with malign intent, seeking to influence readers through manipulation of emotional reactions to controversial topics.

The debate has expanded to include social media companies central role as the seemingly unavoidable host for much of this communication. Some stand accused of censorship for enforcing their terms of service agreement when they identify what they see as misinformation and disinformation.

In reaction, arguments have been made for increased regulation of social media giants, while others demand they do more to curtail misinformation and hate speech. Some favor self-regulation by the companies and say it is not even clear whether governments need to be involved in the discussion about what private companies should or should not host or publish.

Its complicated. These issues exist everywhere, including in the United States. In the digital age, the debate around freedom of the press and free speech has morphed into something much different than it was just 20 years ago.

In order to tackle the challenges that lie ahead, we must work together to foster media freedom. Its a fight that needs to happen for the sake of democracy, for the sake of the heroes that have sacrificed so much to uncover the truth.

Thank you again for having me today, Bartosz.

By U.S. Mission Poland | 23 February, 2022 | Topics: Ambassador, Events, News

Read the original post:
Ambassador Mark Brzezinski's Remarks at the Media for Freedom Summit - US Embassy and Consulate in Poland

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WIAT) House Bill 2 passed Tuesday afternoon and is now headed to the Senate Floor. Representative Allen Treadaway is the sponsor of the bill and says its aimed to stop any protests from getting out of hand, potentially turning into a riot.

When youre looting buildings, burning buildings and you assault public safety officers, somebody tell me what part of that is peaceful, Treadaway said.

The bill, also known as the Riot Bill, has drawn a lot of controversy among activists and protesters as they see it as an attack on freedom of speech. Activists like Travis Jackson have attended protests where tear gas and other riot prevention tactics have been used. He worries this bill could provoke officers to use excessive force and potentially cause harm to protesters.

I fear for my life now. I really do. To be honest with you. Im also an Iraq veteran. So, when I was in Huntsville.I thought I was back in Iraq, Jackson said.

Jackson isnt the only one concerned. The ACLU of Alabama and even lawmakers worry this bill is sending the wrong message.

Our chief concern is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And what is undoubted about HB 2 is its in direct contrast to those values, Dillon Nettles with the ACLU said.

These are nationwide bills that are creating more division in order to separate and divide the people of this great state, Representative Neil Raferty said.

Representative Treadaway says his bill wont harm free speech, but protect it.

And weve got to have laws on the books and penalties that send a strong message to lawbreakers, Treadaway said.

As the bill heads to the Senate for final approval, activists like Eric Hall hope the Senate listens to their concerns.

You cannot silence people. If someone is actually peacefully organizing an assembly, you cannot stop that, Hall said.

Nettles with the ACLU says if the bill makes it past the Senate, they expect to challenge the ruling to the Supreme Court.

See original here:
House Bill 2 headed to Senate; continues to draw controversy - WIAT - CBS42.com