Daily Archives: March 8, 2022

The Dartmouth chapters of the College Republicans and Turning Point USA were scheduled to host conservative journalist Andy Ngo (pictured) and activist Gabriel Nadales to discuss left-wing political violence in the United States. Then the college cancelled the in-person event. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com)

by Zach Greenberg

Dartmouths eleventh-hour cancellation of a student event featuring journalist Andy Ngo due to safety concerns immediately raised suspicion, especially after precious few protesters actually showed up. Now, police department records cast even greater doubt on Dartmouths security rationale and demonstrate how university administrators ignored law enforcement when they censored their students.

In the weeks leading up to a Jan. 20 in-person campus event featuring Ngo and activist Gabriel Nadales about left-wing political violence in the United States, the student organizers alerted Dartmouth to online groups threatening to disrupt their event. Communications between the student groups, public safety officials, and Dartmouth show the university was well-prepared for potential violence, as it had enlisted the local Hanover Police Department to help safeguard the campus discussion.

Despite the online fervor, few came out on the blustery, New England night to protest the event. Even so, right before the event was set to begin, Dartmouth forced the student organizers to hold it online, or not at all.

If such threats did exist, Dartmouth has not shown them to the student organizations, FIRE, or the general public.

Dartmouth claimed it based its decision on concerning information from the Hanover police, yet refused to provide any details. Responding to FIREs Jan. 26 letter calling on the college to explain these alleged security concerns, university President Philip J. Hanlon furnished no additional information and instead curtly remarked that Dartmouth prizes and defends the right to free speech.

FIRE didnt buy it. Something stunk, and it wasnt the smell of stale beer emanating from Keggy the Keg the anthropomorphic barrel that serves as Dartmouths unofficial mascot. We filed an open records request for all communications logged by Hanover police about threats against the event.

Our skepticism yielded results: It turns out the Hanover police did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event. In fact, Hanover police chief Charles Dennis stated, With the information we had, we were as operationally prepared as best we could to handle the event and protest. He also added that we were not provided a reason or reasons for Dartmouths decision to cancel the event. Likewise, the daily crime logs of campus and local police detail no threats to the event.

Records of police communications to university administrators describe online posts about mythological Antifa supersoldiers, opposition to Ngos views, and some discussion of violence, but no explicit threats of harm to Ngo or students. If such threats did exist, Dartmouth has not shown them to the student organizations, FIRE, or the general public.

Dartmouths conduct is far from that of an institution that prizes and defends the right to free speech. When faced with illiberal attempts to use violence to squelch speech, a commitment to expressive freedom requires universities to address the disruption, protect the speaker, and ensure that events can go on as planned. Dartmouth did the exact opposite punishing the student groups by altering the venue and format of their event at the last minute despite no evidence of severe disruption, and law enforcements extensive preparations to ensure public safety.

In our letter to Dartmouth today, we explain why bogus safety concerns must not be used to excuse canceling students expressive events:

Sacrificing free speech rights when faced with actual violence is seldom justified; restricting expressive activity in the absence of substantial disruption is inexcusable. Far from protecting free speech, Dartmouths actions will only prompt future threats and will deter speakers from coming to campusto the detriment of campus safety and students expressive freedoms.

FIRE once again calls on Dartmouth to explain what specific security concerns necessitated the cancellation of the Jan. 20 event. We urge the college to recommit itself to free speech by promising to make genuine, serious, and transparent efforts to protect students expressive rights when threatened with disruption going forward.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

More here:
Dartmouth's 'safety' rationale crumbles as records reveal censorship as the primary motivator in canceling event with Andy Ngo - Foundation for...

In times of war, free speech suffers. Right and wrong appear indisputable. There is moral certainty that God is on our side. When we are convinced that the enemy is producing only dangerous lies and propaganda, we want to bar their entry into the marketplace of ideas.

The war between Russia and Ukraine is the latest test of our commitment to free speech. Vladimir Putin does not hesitate to censor his people, but Western democracies, and specifically the United States, are required to defend free speech. So far, they have done so. Today private actors do the censoring. Social media companies, under pressure to control disinformation, are bumbling along, blocking too much and too little. And now major cultural players in the US and Europe are canceling Russian artists, performers and anything else coming from Russia.

Cultural boycotts have mostly symbolic goals aimed at a Western audience. Any practical effect on Russia itself is hard to conceive. Artist cancellations will not further squeeze Russia financially. Russia lives on the export of oil and gas, not art. And the message of Western disapproval only entrenches Putins domestic narrative of a hostile West.

Cultural institutions in the US and Europe have the right, of course, to express their symbolic opposition to the war by blacklisting Russian artists. However, they must consider the full implications. Todays cultural institutions are full of artists and performers from countries across the globe. Should all these artists be held responsible for the misdeeds of their political leaders? Should they be asked to publicly condemn these leaders when doing so puts them and members of their family at risk of retaliation by their governments? Banning Russian artists based on their political views or, worse, solely because of their nationality, while welcoming artists from China and other repressive regimes undermines any moral high ground an institution can claim.

The people of a nation are not identical with its leadership and should not be equated with it. On the contrary, they can be allies in opposing a repressive regime from within. Among the Russian artists blacklisted today are people who have been critical of the war.

US institutions have so far limited their action to artists who refuse to condemn the regime, the more restrained path still fraught with questions likely to haunt these institutions for a long time. Blacklisting artists based solely on their political views is a tactic associated with the Cold War and the McCarthy era. That era also demanded loyalty oaths similar to current demands on artists to denounce the Putin regime or be canceled. Only this time artists are also asked to face risks in their home country by making such denunciations.

There are better ways for cultural institutions in Western democracies to get involved in the current political crisis. Rather than banning artists associated with Putin, they should support dissident cultural workers within Russia, as well as Ukrainian artists and institutions, by highlighting their work and offering them platforms to amplify their voices. If, after 30 years of open global cultural exchange, an iron curtain falls again, art and cultural institutions should not be complicit.

Information on resources and support for Ukrainian artists here

Continued here:
Free Speech and the War in Ukraine - Blogging Censorship

Putin wants to control the media, wants to control what Russian teachers say in their classrooms, doesnt give a damn about the environment, and couldnt care less about human rights and freedom.

By Ed Kociela

What does the Utah Legislature have in common with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

A lot more than we should tolerate, especially at this moment.

Putin wants to control the media, wants to control what Russian teachers say in their classrooms, doesnt give a damn about the environment, and couldnt care less about human rights and freedom. He is the epitome of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and jingoism that we actually saw trying to take root in the United States one president ago.

On the whole, the U.S. rejected that brand of insanity when it booted Donald Trump from office. Now, if we could only do the same with his handler, Putin, we might be able to put that part of the world on a path to peace, love and harmony.

Except, here in Utah, we need to clean up our own backyard first, especially after reviewing the predictable, but nonetheless traumatic results of the recent Utah legislative session.

The Legislature stripped local decision-making regarding COVID-19 masking regulations, did nothing to clean up the air, failed to repeal the death penalty once again, added some cosmetic changes to the election system that do relatively nothing while costing at least $500,000, banned transgender female athletes from competition, and placed blinders on the media assigned to covering their legislative sessions by approving a rule that would require credentialed news media to only have access to legislative floors, hallways, and lounge if they have permission from a senator or Senate media designee and must promptly exit the designated area after completing the specific interview. It also added restrictions to accessing information regarding police-involved deaths, shielding the actions of the cops to provide cover for those who would take advantage of the badge to deliver what they consider street justice or to, lets be blunt, indulge their inner racism. These last two items are of particular concern because in depriving the press free access to government activities it also shuts down public access to the actions of this legislative body, hiding it in the shadows instead of allowing it to sit in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

We see this happening in Russia right now, this very moment, as Putin puts a lid on the media from Facebook to the legitimate press. You cannot write an op-ed piece over there that is critical of Putins wanton invasion of the Ukraine, cannot deal in the numbers of casualties civilian and military or cost of the war. Cannot question the morality or political reasoning for this unwarranted invasion. Already Putin has branded videos from the West showing the destruction in the Ukraine as false and misleading, of being fake news. How you can fake a video of a missile strike on a building, however, escapes me. And, God help anybody who takes to Russian streets to protest the invasion and egregious war crimes being committed by Putin and his troops.

Its pretty much the same in Salt Lake City where the Capitol lounge lizards only take direction from LDS Church officials the Utah oligarchy.

Ive worked with our legislators on many occasions over the years and have yet to see a clearly unique or progressive thought emerge from any one of them. Even the Democrats seated in the Capitol are connected to the herd. They may wear blue, but they see red.

The U.S. Constitution is a document that guarantees a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That means strict oversight, whether through in-person attendance by voters or via surrogates like the media, charged with being the publics trustworthy watchdogs to report openly and fairly on the goings-on of our elected officials. There is no middle ground here, no compromise in that freedom of speech, no interference that could or should be granted to allow our elected officials to operate in the shadows. Its about transparency, laying the cards on the table face up and playing out the hand by allowing public question and debate. That simply cannot be done unless there is an unfettered press reporting without fear or favor.

I cannot think of a president, let alone a state legislator, who held a honeymoon relationship with the media throughout their term. Trump, who called the media the enemy of the people, wasnt the first to have an uneasy relationship with the press. Throughout U.S. history there have been dustups from Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson and just about every other occupant of the White House and the press. Some, like the relationship between the media and Trump and Richard Nixon, were of a much larger scale, but even John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who came across as very pres savvy, had their moments as well.

Doing the peoples business should not be done in secret because the reasoning behind certain bills or votes can often be as important as the legislation itself. That is the job of the media, to ensure transparency in all our elected officials do. You need to know and I need to know what is going on and why. We need to understand who benefits and who doesnt. We need to know that there was no collusion or untoward outside influence on decisions made and that just cannot happen when the peoples business is cloaked in the shadows. It is why there are gallery seats for the public, whether at the lowest city council levels or the floor of the U.S. Senate. And, since we all cannot attend each and every meeting, we rely on the media to report on what went down, why, and learn who was behind it all.

The danger, of course, in a media clampdown is the proliferation of fake news propaganda ginned up by specific ideological groups with no basis in fact or legitimacy, just the spin of insiders with a particular agenda that they would like to keep hidden.

So, the question I have for any member of the Utah Legislature is this: What have you got to hide?

See original here:
Utah Edges Toward Authoritarian Censorship - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com

On Friday, the Levada Centerone of the only independent polling firms in Russiareleased the results of its two most recent surveys: one on domestic support for President Vladimir Putin and the other on Russians opinions of the ongoing war in Ukraine. For those who have been following the brave anti-war demonstrations in places like St. Petersburg and Moscow, the poll results are, unfortunately, a disheartening reality check.

As of last month, 71 percent of Russian respondents approve of Putins job performance, compared with only 27 percent who disapprove. This represents a slight uptick in support from last month, and it marks the third consecutive poll in which Putins domestic support has increased. At the same time, Russians attitudes toward Ukraine have worsened. Only 35 percent of Russians responded that they generally feel good about Ukraine, as opposed to 52 percent who had a negative perception of the country. Most tellingly, 60 percent of respondents blame the U.S. and NATO for the recent escalation in eastern Ukraine, while only 4 percent believe Russia is at fault.

These poll results are a stark reminder that Russians live in a very different media ecosystem than other Europeans or Americans. While Western media outlets have portrayed Ukrainian resistance to Russian invaders as both justified and heroic, Kremlin news sources have been issuing very different messages. Some stories simply echo Putins rhetoric, claiming Russian actions aim is to save people, demilitarize, and denazify this state [Ukraine]. Others draw from internal divisions within America itself, such as this RT piece amplifying a recent Tucker Carlson segment that argued that the U.S. is not protecting Ukraine but getting revenge on Russia. Others bluntly insist that Russias actions in Ukraine are vindicated by previous U.S. foreign policy blunders.

Its worth noting that Russian propagandists arent necessarily fairor even consistentin their arguments. In a February 16 RT column headlined Guilty Without War (a Russian-language wordplay on an old Soviet drama called Guilty Without Guilt), journalist Sergei Strokan mocked the U.S. for its hysteria about an upcoming Russian invasion.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine scheduled by Washington for February 16 was canceled by Washington itself, Strokan wrote. The fact that Kyiv does not see the prerequisites for a Russian invasion was announced on Monday by the head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, Alexei Danilov. But no one listens to him or President Zelensky in the West: there was no place for the Ukrainian bandura with its hysterically weeping strings in Bidens orchestra.

Unsurprisingly, RT failed to issue an apology (or even retract the story) when Russia sent tanks across the Ukrainian border a week later.

The obvious absurdity of Russian propagandamixed with its blatant refusal to accept Ukrainian sovereigntyhas left Western governments and tech companies grappling with an important question: How should we respond?

If the West were to follow Vladimir Putins example, the solution would be to simply ban all dissenting viewpoints. In what seemed like a panic censorship surge this week, the Russian government blocked both Facebook and Twitter nationwide, as well as the websites of many Western media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe, Deutsche Welle, and the BBC. This came on the heels of a new law signed by Vladimir Putin denoting the dissemination of all false information about the activities of Russian armed forces as a criminal offensefor example, referring to the Ukrainian military offensive as an invasion or attack as opposed to a special military operation. And only days earlier, Russian authorities blocked access to Dozhd TV and Ekho Moskvy, two of the few remaining domestic news outlets that challenged the official narrative from the Russian government about the Ukraine invasion.

Yet it is impossible to see Putins decision to create a Russian splinternetone which effectively cuts Russian citizens off from the rest of the online worldas anything but a sign of weakness and desperation. In its statement announcing its ban on Facebook, Roskomnadzor, the communications watchdog operated by the Russian government, said that the social networks decisions to restrict access to many Kremlin news outletsincluding Sputnik, RT, and Gazeta.rurepresented violations of federal law. As NPR columnist Shannon Bond wrote on Wednesday, tech companies were always walking a geopolitical high-wire as they navigated the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even before Putin decided to block social media access in Russia, these tech companies were effectively crafting a splinternet of their ownusing selective deplatforming in an attempt to placate both Russia and the West simultaneously.

Over the last week, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook removed RT and Sputnik from their platforms in Europe, while allowing both outlets to stay live in Russia. Google and Apple pulled RTs and Sputniks news apps from their app storesagain, with an exception made for Russia. For its part, Google did ban several state-owned Russian outlets from monetizing their content on any of its advertising platforms last week, but this only affected their ability to earn ad moneya small percentage of their overall budget, which is subsidized by Russian taxpayers. When Roskomnadzor complained that large advertising campaigns to misinform the Russian audience were running on YouTube, Google simply suspended all advertising in Russia, thereby punishing even anti-war Russian content creators.

Before Russia announced its broad crackdown on social media access, many of these Big Tech actions seemed to miss an obvious point: the place where people were in most need of an alternative perspective to Russian propaganda was in Russia itself. According to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll earlier this week, only 6 percent of Americans believe Putin was justified in invading Ukraine, while 74 percent say he was not justified. But as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky noted earlier this week, it is only the Russian people who can bring an end to the war. Do Russians want the war? I would like to know the answer, he said. But the answer depends only on you, citizens of the Russian Federation.

By banning Western audiences from being able to access state-backed Russian news, Big Tech companies were almost playing into Putins handintimating that Russian propaganda was too persuasive and alluring to be available in America and Europe. Many journalists had the exact opposite perspective. As Ricardo Gutirrez, the general secretary of the European Federation of Journalists, explained on Tuesday, It is always better to counteract the disinformation of propagandist or allegedly propagandist media by exposing their factual errors or bad journalism, by demonstrating their lack of financial or operational independence, by highlighting their loyalty to government interests and their disregard for the public interest.

Politicos senior media writer Jack Shafer put it similarly: Knowing what Putin is thinking or at least what hes telling his people or the outside world is essential to countering him, if need be.

Social media companies may have handled the Russian news situation imperfectly, but by completely blocking these companies nationwide, Putin has reasserted himself as the primary villain in the storyalbeit, a very thin-skinned one. The fact that Putin has now banned almost all independent journalism in Russia proves he does not have the confidence to defend his illegal invasion in the public square.

The fact that VPN installationswhich allows users to keep accessing blocked internet siteshave risen by 1,906 percent in Russia in the last few days is evidence that this cowardly censorship may backfire spectacularly.

Jonathan Chew is a former Dispatch intern.

Go here to see the original:
Putin, Propaganda, and the Politics of Censorship - The Dispatch