Monthly Archives: May 2022

Eighty-four percent of American adults say it is a very serious or somewhat serious problem that Americans are refraining from speaking freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

The New York Times Editorial Board cited this study, commissioned with Siena College, along with a statement defending freedom of speech as vital for the search for truth and knowledge. When the board did so, critics balked. Several journalists condemned the New York Times for endorsing bothsidesism.

What is bothsidesism? The word is a recent addition to our cultural lexicon. It refers to the journalistic practice of presenting both sides of an argument. The alleged problem with this practice is that it tends to bestow on controversial views an intellectual or moral credibility they otherwise would not have.

According to one writer in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the disease of bothsidesism is evident in the Times case because it advertises a false equivalence. It places equal blame on both the political left and on the political right for promoting an environment hostile to open discourse.

In other words, progressive critics of bothsidesism argue that cancel culture on the left poses far less of a danger to free speech than attempts in right-leaning state legislatures to determine, by law, what can and cannot be taught in K-12 classrooms and public universities. A City University of New York professor calls this bothsidesism appalling because it equates the left criticizing hate and the right burning books .

The opposite of bothsidesism, of course, is onesideism. And that is what journalists are doing when they habitually exculpate one political party and charge another with all that ails the country.

It is certainly easier to congregate with like-minded people to dwell within, and speak within, our own echo chambers, so that our favored views go unchallenged.

There is, however, no free speech without bothsidesism. There is no genuine public political discourse without bothsidesism.

If we want to cultivate healthy civil discourse and make strides toward truth, we must practice bothsidesism. The ancient skeptics can help us understand why this is the case.

The academic skeptics, who were followers of Socrates, did not shy away from the hard work of engaging in for-and-against argumentation for the sake of finding views that, if not true, at least resemble truth and serve as suitable guides for thought and action.

The academic skeptics practiced bothsidesism for the sake of intellectual integrity and freedom from falsehood.

It is our practice to say what we think against every position, the Roman philosopher Cicero maintained. And the reason for this is simple: We want to discover truth.

The early modern French skeptic Pierre Bayle differentiated between philosophers who acted as reporters and those who acted as advocates. The advocate hides the weakness of his view and the strength of his opponents view. The reporter, meanwhile, represents the strong and the weak arguments of the two opposite parties faithfully, and without any partiality.

Bayle thought the philosopher, like the historian, should act as a reporter. And this would seem to apply to journalists, too.

To the extent that the reporter advocates a cause, it should occur after one has laid out the arguments for the reader and sided with the one that seems most persuasive. This method, while not guaranteeing impartiality, at least promotes the kind of intellectual modesty and integrity necessary for good-faith public deliberation.

The 18th-century British philosopher David Hume was an admirer of both Bayle and Cicero. He weighed pros and cons of the party positions of the Whigs and the Tories the parties of his day. He thought this approach would teach us a lesson of moderation in all our political controversies.

Through the practice of for-and-against argumentation, we might improve our own thinking and cultivate the art of discernment. That is one advantage of the liberal arts, which Hume argued softens and humanizes the temper. As the ancient Roman poet Ovid remarked: A faithful study of the liberal arts humanizes character and permits it not to be cruel.

The attempt to silence political opponents has an element of cruelty about it and it certainly dehumanizes ourselves and our political enemies. Universities, formerly bastions for the study of liberal arts, now tend to prioritize political advocacy over sound political judgment. And this has produced the kind of self-righteous zeal that has flooded journalistic outlets and that has damaged the quality of public political debate.

In the Tocqueville Program at Furman University, we strive, as Tocqueville did, to see, not differently, but further than the parties. This calls for the practice of bothsidesism, a prerequisite of citizenship in a democratic republic, no matter how unpopular it may seem at the moment. Onesideism, on the other hand, is a formula for stifling speech, not encouraging it.

Aaron Alexander Zubia is a postdoctoral fellow in the Tocqueville Program at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina.

See the rest here:
National View: There is no free speech without 'bothsidesism' - Duluth News Tribune

To adjust the sample to reflect proportionally the composition of the U.S. population for the data used in the Free Speech graph, a sample of the population was taken with weights applied to 8 categories with 26 subgroups. The groups are: gender (2 subgroups), age (4 subgroups), region (4 subgroups), party identification (3 subgroups), political view (3 subgroup), race/ethnicity (4 subgroups), area (3 subgroups) and income (3 subgroups).

BIAS vs. STATISTICAL BIAS

Bias is the tendency to favor one thing over another. Statistical bias is the tendency of a statistic to overestimate or underestimate the actual value of a population characteristic of interest. Statistical bias may be caused by factors involved in the study design and in the data collection.

In the Free Speech graph, the statistical bias relates to how the poll was taken, including the over- or under-sampling of the subgroups, the use of a phone survey, and the wording and ordering of the questions. Statistical bias from the over- or under-sampling was reduced by weighting their responses.

MARGIN OF ERROR (MOE)

Because sample surveys include only some members of a population of interest, surveys are only able to provide an estimate of the actual value. Usually, for a sample, an interval of values that is likely to include the actual value of the population parameter is given, rather than just the value of the sample statistic. This range is determined by the sample statistic plus or minus the margin of error (MOE). (Note that the MOE does not compensate for errors resulting from flawed survey methods, such as using an unrepresentative sample, responders not telling the truth, or faulty wording of the question.) The margin of error is calculated by using a formula that includes the desired confidence level (the confidence that the sample interval includes the actual value) and the sample size. A MOE of 3% is typical in large national polls, using a 95% confidence level and a sample size slightly more than 1,000.

In the Free Speech graph, the sample statistics for the sample of 1,507 have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Though the confidence level is not stated, it is reasonable to assume that it is the standard 95 percent. Statistically speaking, we are 95% confident that the actual value of each statistic is between the percentages shown in the graph plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. For example, looking at the overall sample with 40 percent of responding that there is a very serious problem with exercising freedom of speech, we are 95 percent confident that the actual value of the share of the overall population who believe that there is a very serious problem with free speech is between 36.9% (40% - 3.1% = 36.9%) and 43.1% (40% + 3.1% = 43.1%).

________

The graph for Whats Going On in This Graph? is selected in partnership with Sharon Hessney. Ms. Hessney wrote the reveal and Stat Nuggets with Roxy Peck, professor emerita, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, and moderates online with Tara Truesdale, who teaches math and statistics at Ben Lippen School in Columbia, South Carolina.

________

The graph for Whats Going On in This Graph? is selected in partnership with Sharon Hessney. Ms. Hessney wrote the reveal and Stat Nuggets with Roxy Peck, professor emerita, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, and moderates online with Tara Truesdale, who teaches math and statistics at Ben Lippen School in Columbia, South Carolina.

More?

See all graphs in this series or collections of 60 of our favorite graphs, 28 graphs that teach about inequality and 24 graphs about climate change.

View our archives that link to all past releases, organized by topic, graph type and Stat Nugget.

Learn more about the notice and wonder teaching strategy from this 5-minute video and how and why other teachers are using this strategy from our on-demand webinar.

Sign up for our free weekly Learning Network newsletter so you never miss a graph. Graphs are always released by the Friday before the Wednesday live-moderation to give teachers time to plan ahead.

Go to the American Statistical Association K-12 website, which includes teacher statistics resources, Census in the Schools student-generated data, professional development opportunities, and more.

Students 13 and older in the United States and the Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Read the original here:
Whats Going On in This Graph? | Free Speech - The New York Times

It's easy to overstate, but attitudes towards freedom of action differ in the United States and the European Union. Americans tend to believe that people have a right to make their own decisions and are better trusted to do so than coercive governments; Europeans place more faith in the state, allowing room for personal choice only after officialdom installs guardrails and files away sharp edges. Yes, that exaggerates the case and there are plenty of dissenters under both systems, but it captures the treatment of speech and online conduct in the EU's new Digital Services Act.

"Today's agreement on the Digital Services Act is historic, both in terms of speed and of substance," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen commented on April 23. "The DSA will upgrade the ground-rules for all online services in the EU. It will ensure that the online environment remains a safe space, safeguarding freedom of expression and opportunities for digital businesses. It gives practical effect to the principle that what is illegal offline, should be illegal online. The greater the size, the greater the responsibilities of online platforms."

There's a lot in the proposed law, as you would expect of wide-ranging legislation paired with a companion bill addressing digital markets. The overall tone is of micromanagement of online spaces with dire consequences for platforms that fail to protect users from "illegal and harmful content" as defined by the government. Those who violate the rules by, for example, repeatedly failing to scrub forbidden material in timely fashion, face massive fines or expulsion from the EU market. Of course, no matter official assurances, speech hemmed in by red tape and subject to official oversight in monitored spaces isn't especially "free" at all, which is a contradiction recognized by critics.

"The DSA does not strike the right balance between countering genuine online harms and safeguarding free speech," Jacob Mchangama, the executive director of Copenhagen-based human-rights think tank Justitia, warns in Foreign Policy. "It will most likely result in a shrinking space for online expression, as social media companies are incentivized to delete massive amounts of perfectly legal content."

Mchangama is the author of the recently published Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, which Katrina Gulliver reviewed for the May issue of Reason. He's familiar with differing attitudes towards speech around the world. In particular, he understands that the American approach leaves speakers more room, while the European approach favors those who impose constraints.

"While free speech is protected by both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, these legal instruments offer governments much greater leeway than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to defining categories, such as hate speech, that can be regulated," he adds in the Foreign Policy piece. "Nor does European law provide as robust protection against intermediary liability as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields U.S. online platforms from liability for most user-generated content."

But the danger isn't just to Europeans who voice edgy opinions or manage online forums; it's to the whole world through the "Brussels Effect." That is, it's easier for large platforms like Facebook to apply Europe's tight rules to everybody than it is for them to vary rules by country, which is complicated and risks the wrath of EU regulators when speech inevitably bleeds across digital borders.

Of course, some people hope that the Digital Services Act becomes a global standard. Just as Mchangama is a European who sees free speech as a right that favors the powerless over those in authority, there are American fans of the EU approach who want officialdom to exercise more control.

Reacting to the announced sale of Twitter to Elon Musk, The New Yorker's John Cassidy objects that "Musk seems intent on taking Twitter back to the not at all distant era when social media was a free-for-all." He sniffily dismisses that prospect as unacceptable. For proper regulation of speech, he suggests "the E.U. has just provided a road map for how it could be done: by putting the onus on social-media companies to monitor and remove harmful content, and hit them with big fines if they don't."

"Musk would surely object to the U.S. adopting a regulatory system like the one that the Europeans are drawing up, but that's too bad. The health of the Internetand, most important, democracyis too significant to leave to one man, no matter how rich he is."

But, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. warned in 2019, "the dangers of social media company, legislative and 'watchdog'-backed mandates to censor speech and otherwise regulate 'harmful content' are themselves the harms facing the Internet of today and the splinternet of tomorrow. Some authoritarian-minded interventionists seek a pre-ordained deplatforming of unpopular ideas and controversial debate and even pretend they protect democracy."

Such restrictions put the definition of "harmful" in the hands of self-serving political operatives and favor large established and, yes, rich companies, for whom compliance is easier, over smaller firms.

"Social media giants and international governments engaging in censorious consultative alliances and frameworks incorporating politically derived norms threaten free expression even in the U.S.," Crews added.

Justitia made a similar point about Germany's censorious 2017 NetzDG law. "In under a year, the number of countries copy-pasting the NetzDG matrix to provide cover and legitimacy for digital censorship and repression has almost doubled to a total of 25," the think tank noted. The German law inspired copycat "measures to combat vaguely defined categories of hate speech and fake news by placing responsibility on the social media platforms for user content."

Beyond the framework of individual rights, the practical argument for free speech is that the powers-that-be can't be trusted to distinguish "good" speech from "bad speech" and to ban only that which is harmful. As Justitia emphasizes, that has already happened with NetzDG. There's no reason to expect a less authoritarian outcome from the Digital Services Act which borrows much from the German law.

Mchangama proposes using human-rights law as a benchmark for speech regulation, though he concedes that it's "not a panacea." More promising is his suggestion for "distributed content moderation" including "voluntary filters that individual users could apply at will." People could decide for themselves what is "harmful" and block or engage as they pleased. That might satisfy everybody except those most invested in controlling others.

Fans of regulated speech always seem to envision the regulators as sharing their own sensibilities in the exercise of censorship powers; they never imagine themselves being muzzled. But the "free for all" to which they object means freedom for them as much as for everybody else, and if they get what they want they may come to miss it as much as the rest of us.

See the rest here:
Europe Escalates the Threat to Online Free Speech - Reason

Last year, a Texas historical association named me educator of the year. In January, my college fired me.

Im a professor of American history at Collin College in Plano, Texas. For almost 15 years, I have loved teaching, sponsoring student organizations, winning grants and awards for my scholarship, and earning excellent evaluations from students and administrators alike.

But on May 15, my career will end. I never imagined I would lose my job because I shared knowledge.

In August, while teaching about the history of pandemics, I gently encouraged my students to consider wearing masks to keep themselves and others safe from a deadly pandemic. No mandates. No punishment for not wearing a mask. I simply offered advice.

For that, I received a pink slip.

For years, Collin College has worked tirelessly to erode free expression.

In 2017, I co-wrote an opinion piece, published by this newspaper, calling for the removal of Confederate monuments. I was warned that my advocacy might make the college look bad.

In 2019, I gave an interview with The Washington Post as an expert on the history of race relations in Dallas, after a former Collin College student was arrested in the 2019 El Paso shooting that killed 23. I was disciplined by the college for granting an interview.

Sadly, I am not alone.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is representing me in a lawsuit against Collin College, estimates that there were more than 570 incidents over the past seven years in which scholars were targeted for some type of professional punishment when they exercised constitutionally protected speech. In more than 20 percent of the cases, the professors were terminated.

This trend is not limited to one end of the political spectrum. Professors across the country, representing diverse viewpoints, are routinely punished for their constitutionally-protected speech.

Collin College has become an epicenter of the war on free speech in higher education, with four professors fired there over the past two years. One professor was fired for criticizing Mike Pence after work hours, on her private Twitter feed during the 2020 vice presidential debate. Another lost her job after publicly calling for the college to post a COVID dashboard. A third was canned when she was listed on the statewide Texas Faculty Associations website as a contact person for the nascent local chapter being organized by Collin College faculty members. All these professors were beloved and acclaimed educators.

Collin Colleges actions have prompted an investigation by the American Association of University Professors and two years of passionate protests, including a free speech rally held last Tuesday night that drew two dozen to the colleges Board of Trustees meeting. Nevertheless, the institutions leadership has refused to budge.

Meanwhile, the chilling climate of censorship, and the fear of addressing subjects that might offend somebody, sometime, somewhere started with K-12 classrooms and has now reached graduate programs.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, concerned that Marxists are supposedly poisoning the minds of college students, proposed banning tenure for new professors. Tenure is a system designed to protect professors from being fired because the topics they research or the conclusions they draw are unpopular at the moment. Patricks proposal could cause a serious brain drain in the state.

College classrooms should be where students get their final lessons in how to cope with, learn from, and respond to competing ideas and how to empathize with those who have different experiences before they emerge into the larger world. Students are being robbed of the opportunity to learn those lessons at institutions of higher education across the nation.

Threats to democracy do not have to come in the form of a Russian tank or exploding missiles. Freedom can be fatally eroded, slowly but relentlessly. A professor is fired here, a principal forced to retire there, a book is banned or an idea forbidden elsewhere. Soon the crumbling edifice of a flawed but once-vibrant republic collapses.

Michael Phillips is a history professor at Collin College, and author of White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Dallas, 1841-2001. He wrote this for The Dallas Morning News.

Visit link:
I'm one of the professors Collin College fired in its attack on free speech - The Dallas Morning News

Democrats are at war with free speech, and they are using every tool in their political box to silence their political opponents.

Want proof? President Joe Bidens Department of Homeland Security just announced a new Disinformation Governance Board designed to fight misinformation.

The administration selected Nina Jankowicz, who peddled the lie that Hunter Bidens laptop was Russian disinformation, to lead the board.

Or just take a look at all of the Democrats like White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dick Durbin, who are losing their minds after realizing that Elon Musks bid to take over Twitter hurts their control regime.

Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to claim Musk owning Twitter is dangerous for our democracy. The Washington Post also admitted that Democrats, Biden have limited power as Elon Musk buys Twitter.

Throwing a fit about the ability to censor and suppress speech is a growing trend in Democrat politics. Leftist politicians past and present have been heavily involved in efforts to smear their political enemies as threats to democracy and label anything counter to their narrative as disinformation.

Its clear that censorship and control are now a fundamental part of Democrats political platform, which is why theyve been openly at war with the First Amendment since Barack Obama was in office.

During his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama issued a rare rebuke of the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling to the SCOTUS justices faces. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court clarified that nonprofits and super-PACs could spend what they wanted on political speech so long as they were not directly coordinating with political campaigns.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections, Obama said.

While Justice Samuel Alito appeared to mutter that Obamas characterization of the decision was not true, the president begged for legislators to counter the high courts ruling with legislation that helps to correct some of these problems.

Four years later in 2014, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led a charge to repeal free speech protections by altering the First Amendment. New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall formally proposed the amendment but 45 other Senate Democrats gladly signed up to co-sponsor the legislation that would grant Congress unlimited regulatory powers over the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.

Democrats hyped the amendment as a means to restore democracy to the American people by limiting the control money had over American politics. Reid even admitted the legislation was designed to target his political enemies like the Koch brothers.

The leftist party was quick to carve out an exception for the corporate press. There was not, however, a caveat in the amendment stating that legislators would only target corporations, billionaires, and other big money groups.

Under Udalls amendment, every Americans right to free speech was threatened. As Texas Sen. Ted Cruz noted in his 2014 analysis of the amendment, Democrats coordinated assault on free speech would grant Congress unchecked power to silence citizens. He listed some examples of what Congress could do if this amendment were adopted:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore) and radio programsanything not deemed the pressthat might influence upcoming elections.

The amendment eventually failed but every single Senate Democrat present that day, 54 total, voted for it. As a whole, the Democrat Party saw no problems with trying to cancel the Constitution to better serve their power.

Sound familiar? Just last year, Democrats tried to pass their federal election takeover bill HR 1, which contained provisions that would also control what Americans and politicians say. HR1 also failed but Democrats are still doing everything in their power to control the narrative.

They disqualify and subdue politically inconvenient information such as Hunter Bidens laptop while amplifying fake information to push hoaxes, such as that Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election. They host disinformation forums and talk about Republicans being a threat to our democracy all while calling for more censorship campaigns to silence Americans.

Simply put, Democrats dont need Congress to alter the First Amendment for them to limit speech. As long as the left has Big Tech censors and the propaganda press on their side, they can still suppress speech they dont like and prop up narratives that they do.

Thats why so many of them threw fits this week when news broke that billionaire Elon Musk won his bid to take over Twitter. Musks plan to weed out Twitters reckless political censorship is a threat to their regime.

Musks disgust that a credentialed news organization was silenced by Twitter for reporting on what should have been the biggest story of the 2020 election cycle angers the left because they dont regret throttling the Hunter Biden laptop story at all. It worked, didnt it?

Dont be surprised at Democrats calling for Americans to be muzzled. Censorship is a fundamental part of their party platform. And with President Joe Bidens approval ratings at dangerous lows heading into midterms, suppressing speech also seems to be the only way that Democrats believe they can win elections.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Here is the original post:
Democrats Have Made War On Free Speech Since The Obama Era - The Federalist

PEORIA Panhandling has been a hot topic for years, but members of the Peoria City Council have taken a keen interest in it, saying they have gotten an increased number of calls from their constituents about the matter.

At Tuesday night's council meeting, councilmembers all seemed in agreement that they needed to take action.

Chuck Grayeb, who represents the city's 2nd District, says it's common sense to keep people out of the roadway and out of traffic. He takes umbrage with people who say this is being done to punish those who are in need.

"It's a hot button issue only for people who want to assert their moral superiority," he said. "Peoria wants to help anyone and anybody who is hurting and who needs a roof over their head or a meal."

Panhandling:Groups challenge panhandling ordinances in Peoria and 21 other Illinois cities

But, he said, those who are often out panhandling aren't willing to abide by the rules and, thus, create a safety hazard.

Added At-large Councilwoman Beth Jensen: "It's a quality of life issue. It's the broken window syndrome. If we just let broken windows go, then things get worse and it adds to a deteriorating situation (across the city)."

Peoria adopted an ordinance in 2003 that regulated panhandling. One had been in place prior, but the 2003 changes gave panhandling a definition:"any solicitation made in person upon any street, public way, public place or park in the city, in which a person requests an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person and includes but is not limited to seeking donations."

That did not include passively standing with a sign, nor did it allow "aggressive panhandling which is where a person touches another person in the hopes of getting a donation or money."

Panhandling was barred from sundown to sunrise and also in certain areas, such asnear ATMs or sidewalk cafes.

'They hate me that much?'Panhandlers in Peoria say they face mistreatment

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ordinances that barred panhandlers from holding signs infringed upon free speech and, thus, were illegal.

Then in 2018, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Chicago, weighed in on a challenge to Springfield's panhandling ordinance, which barred such acts in the city's historic part of town, and also struck down those ordinances.

The issue was simple. A city could not regulate the content of the speech, which is what the panhandling ordinances did. Rather, a rule had to apply to everyone across the board to pass muster.

As such, the city repealed its ordinance regarding panhandling in 2018 to comply with the court decisions.

'Panhandling' unsafe in the median

In place now are ordinances that prohibit vehicles or drivers from blocking the right of way. The city is also looking to place several signs around the area that state "panhandling or soliciting is unsafe in the median."

The idea, City Manager Patrick Urich said, was to discourage motorists particularly but also the actual panhandlers from being in the road or on the narrow medians. It doesn't discourage actual panhandling, nor does it put a barrier on people standing on a sidewalk, he said.

The number of signs as well as the locations are being determined now, he said. The city's legal team as well as the Peoria Police Department are trying to come up with locations and to prioritize where the first signs should go.

Grayeb asked for an amendment to the existing ordinance regarding cars stopping in the roadway that would include pedestrians. He thinks that's a good way tobar people from being in the road with signs and not run afoul of the free speech issue.

And he's not worried about what effect it might have on charities thatsolicit there.

"I brought this up years ago, back in the '90s, when I expressed concern about the firefighters passing the boot. People should not be in street," he said.

From Springfield: Ordinance on pedestrians in roadways pulled from final passage. Here's why

Jensen sought to have a definition for aggressive panhandling put in as well. She saidshe's been contacted by many people who say they have had their car windows knocked on and were frightened. Others, she said, are trying to avoid panhandlers and come close to causing accidents.

Sid Ruckriegel, an at-large councilman, said the situation is becoming more and more common.

"This is a safety hazard not only for those that are standing and sitting on the small concrete islands or walking in the roadways coming up to cars but also to our drivers who can become distracted or who worry about accidentally hitting an individual," he said. "Just in the past few weeks, several people have reached out to me about a wreck caused in just such a manner or having to avoid causing an accident.

He advocated at Tuesday's council meeting for Peoria to reach out to its social service agencies, which, he said, come in contact with many of those who panhandle. A day later, he saidoutreach was just part of the plan.

"Signage, educational and a change in localordinance language all arepart of the discussion. With this is coupled the connection of individuals to needed community resources.I think with the help of the Legal Department, Public Works and(police) Chief Echevarria, as well as having input from a number of local social agencies, the plan put forth Tuesday night can start to curb this potentially dangerous behavior.

Read the original here:
'Hot button issue': Peoria wants to rein in panhandlers but can't tread on free speech - Peoria Journal Star

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

"Unfiltered" host Dan Bongino revealed the "sub-players" of big tech censorship Saturday, saying it's not just "the Twitters, the Facebooks, the YouTubes" there's more.

DAN BONGINO: Here are a few examples. First, what about Wikipedia? You really don't hear Wikipedia much, especially when it comes to the big tech censorship game. But don't doubt me on this. Wikipedia is becoming a powerful source for censorship and rewriting history, and they're just as influential in some cases as social media is.

FLASHBACK: WIKIPEDIA PAGE ON MASS KILLINGS UNDER COMMUNIST REGIMES CONSIDERED FOR DELETION, PROMPTING BIAS ACCUSATIONS

People holding mobile phones are silhouetted against a backdrop projected with the Twitter logo. (REUTERS/Kacper Pempel)

Then there's the Apple App Store. You know about Apple, of course. But do you know about the App Store? Where you go to get apps? Well, one of the most powerful platforms online, the App Store, they have a monopoly over there, they can just about ban any content they want. Politics don't even need to be involved.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It's happening all around us. The App Store, Google Ad Network, Wikipedia. Google Ads is one of the most powerful, devastating tools the Left has to censor conservative voices. It's not all about Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Read this article:
Dan Bongino warns the fight for free speech has just started, conservative censorship is 'all around us' - Fox News