Category Archives: Free Speech

To the Editor:

Re How Are Students Expected to Live Like This on Campuses?, by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, nytimes.com, Nov. 8):

Mr. Wegman is correct that universities cannot live up to their ideals as havens for unfettered debate when their Jewish students feel physically threatened. And he rightly suggests necessary limits on a culture of free speech, including prohibitions on harassment and targeting based on ethnic or religious identity.

But it is time for a broader interrogation of the vaunted Chicago Principles he cites, which hold that the only appropriate role for a university is to stay silent on matters of public controversy so that its constituents may fully debate it.

I believe that a more important principle for a university arguably its fundamental principle is to seek and articulate truth. And in this case, the truth is clear: Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, that is not representative of the Palestinian people as a whole.

To the extent the Chicago Principles prevent universities from stating that truth, they make honest debate more difficult, stain all pro-Palestinian students with the repugnant reputation of Hamas, and undermine university administrators ability to isolate and combat real antisemitism on campuses.

There is no doubt that free expression is a paramount value in universities. But we can aspire higher. We can build our bastions of free speech on the foundational layers of moral clarity and intellectual integrity.

(Rabbi) Ari Berman New York The writer is president of Yeshiva University.

To the Editor:

Re What Is Happening on College Campuses Is Not Free Speech, by Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 11):

Protecting free speech on campus requires bravery and intellectual honesty, not partisan definitions. As Jewish students, we share in the real fear surrounding the rise of violent threats against our communities. Yet, this fear cannot be addressed with definitions that marginalize legitimate Palestinian advocacy.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism that the authors cite, which refers to rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism, is opposed even by several progressive, pro-Israel and Jewish organizations. Such critiques correctly cite the definitions potential to suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.

Institutions of higher education should, of course, address antisemitism; yet, adopting this broad definition would come at the expense of students and professors fundamental rights to free expression. Regardless of how uncomfortable certain phrases may make us, disagreements surrounding terminology and definitions must not be equated with the very real dangers of death threats, hate speech and physical violence.

Upholding free speech requires empathy and consistency, and we must understand that intimidation and fear on campuses are real, and they are not felt only or even primarily by Jewish students.

Eliana Blumberg Rita Feder Michael Farrell-Rosen Providence, R.I. The writers are students at Brown University.

To the Editor:

Re At College, Debating When Speech Goes Too Far (front page, Nov. 11):

A key role of higher education is to nurture students intellectually and emotionally as they develop their ethical and moral compasses. Just as alumni have threatened to pull financial support of schools that do not call out terror and take a stance on antisemitism, members of university boards must require similar action.

As a member of a university board of trustees whose president has publicly spoken up for morality and truth, and as an American who is shocked to see scenes unfolding that are reminiscent of 1930s Europe, I challenge all the university boards in the country to raise their voices and make their leadership accountable for what is happening on their campuses.

There is zero tolerance for racism and zero tolerance for harassment of any kind on todays campuses, and we should not rest until there is zero tolerance for antisemitism. Colleges should be places where truth is sought and where everyone feels safe. University leaders must step up and lead by example by first speaking up and then creating an action plan to combat hate and antisemitism.

Lawrence D. Platt Los Angeles The writer is a member of the board of trustees of Touro University.

To the Editor:

If college students directed this sort of hate speech against Black or Asian or L.G.B.T.Q. people, they would most likely be expelled or at least suspended. The fact that they arent speaks to the moral cowardice of university administrators.

Joshua Rosenbaum Brooklyn

Read more:
Opinion | Speech and Antisemitism on Campus - The New York Times

By Aviva Presser Aiden 11/10/23 6:07pm

Editors Note: This is a letter to the editor that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. Letters to the editor are fact-checked to the best of our ability and edited for grammar and spelling by Thresher editors.

In the article All out for Palestine protest sees 2,000 at Houston City Hall from Oct. 17, Associate Vice Provost Catherine Clack discusses the Rice Students for Justice in Palestine sign-making event at the Multicultural Center in the wake of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. She states ... how is this something that we should oppose when it's an exercise of free speech?

I respect the complexity of issues related to the Middle East and recognize the importance of representing a spectrum of views. But while free speech is a cornerstone of academic discourse, it is imperative that we distinguish between fostering open dialogue and supporting dangerous rhetoric.

The slogan From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free, prominently displayed in the group's signage, was popularized in the 1960s by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It helped the PLO recognized at the time as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department amplify its calls for the dismantling of the state of Israel. As the Palestinian National Charter of 1968 said, Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate [i.e., from the river to the sea], is an indivisible territorial unit Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history.

The official policy of Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization which conducted the Oct. 7 attacks, includes the slogan almost verbatim. Hamas 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies states, Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Other signs read Resistance is not Terrorism, and Resistance is Justified. They seem to cast the Oct. 7 Hamas attack as legitimate resistance. Osama Bin Ladens Letter to America used that rationale to justify 9/11. Attacks targeting civilians, even labeled as resistance, are unequivocally acts of terrorism. Such actions should never find endorsement or support within our community, even under the banner of free speech.

Enjoy what you're reading? Sign up for our newsletter

Originally posted here:
Letter to the Editor: Free speech at Rice should support open ... - The Rice Thresher

Samson Cournane, a third-year student majoring in computer science at the University of Maine, has been accused of defamation. Currently, he is facing legal backlash in response to a change.org petition and letter to the editor published in the Maine Campus on Oct. 28, 2022.

Cournane was seeking signatures to raise public attention to the need for patient welfare accountability at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC). His mother, board-certified critical care pediatrician Dr. Anne Yered, voiced first-hand safety concerns to hospital administration while employed at EMMC in 2021. Shortly thereafter, she was allegedly terminated without legitimate cause.

Yered, alongside other physicians, was witness to multiple safety violations at the medical institution. It was brought to her attention that the Medical Director of the Pediatric ICU at EMMC only completed one-third of a necessary critical care fellowship. Healthcare workers are not typically authorized to assume a predominant role without receiving a full education in preparation for the position.

Upon later investigation, Cournane took notice of an alarming staff-to-patient ratio, considering EMMC being ranked as the second-largest hospital in Maine. Though a shortage of nurses is a commonly considered problem, physicians cannot provide complete treatment to those admitted in critical condition without forsaking the care of other patients in turn.

Cournane initially tried to set up a table for his petition at UMaine. He was encouraged by the Assistant Director for Campus Activities Benjamin Evans to have a conversation with hospital public relations beforehand. Evans also suggested that these efforts revolve more around Leapfrog, a nonprofit organization that collects data on patient safety for transparency.

The Senior Vice President and Chief Quality Officer of EMMC, Dr. Navneet Marwaha, originally arranged an opportunity for Cournane to communicate grievances before creating his petition. However, the hospital administration did not follow through with their arrangement by reasoning that his concerns could not be taken into account due to the litigation involving Yered. After receiving potential misinformation about UMaines tabling policy, Cournane eventually set up a petition online.

The date and time were set and agreed upon, but Northern Light abruptly canceled the meeting. I went back to the university to see if I could get a table and was told it would cost me $250 each time I wanted to use it, said Cournane.

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), or getting sued for speaking out, potentially threatens freedom of speech. According to Article 1 Section 4 of the Maine Constitution, Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of this liberty; no laws shall be passed regulating or restraining the freedom of the press.

Abuses of free speech are categorized under obscenity, death threats, incitement to violence or defamation. However, First Amendment rights only apply to governmental censorship, meaning that an individual or conglomerate can claim abuse with even a baseline scope of probable cause.

Defamation is a false statement publicized with the intention of damaging the reputation of a third party. The tort of defamation considers two components. One is slander, otherwise known as spoken character assassination, and the second is libel, written character assassination. Cournanes petition and letter would fall under the latter if proven in a court of law. One aspect to bear in mind is that the truth is a widely accepted defense to such allegations.

To sue for prima facie, or at first sight defamation, the plaintiff must prove that a statement made was false but purported as fact, published or communicated to a third person, derived from negligence or malice, and finally, that the statement causes concrete damage or harm to the person or entity mentioned.

Cournane is represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). According to the case overview, EMMC is also suing under the false conjecture that Yered instigated her sons decision to initiate public outreach. FIRE wrote, Although meritless, the threat of defending against a costly defamation suit had the desired chilling effect: Samson ceased his advocacy.

Cournane will be giving a presentation on his experience at the Maine Youth Leadership Conference in Augusta. It will be live-streamed, and registration is free.

See the article here:
Free speech of UMaine student allegedly threatened by an ... - The Maine Campus

About 60 Ann Arbor community members gathered in the Honigman Auditorium at the University of Michigan Law School for the 33rd annual Davis, Markert, Nickerson Lecture Thursday afternoon. The lecture was hosted by the U-M Faculty Senate and focused on educational gag orders and state censorship.

Johnathan Friedman, the director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works for the protection of creative expression was the guest lecturer at the event. Friedman spoke about the threat of censorship in public education and made suggestions for promoting academic freedom on college campuses.

The DMN lecture is named after three former U-M faculty members Chandler Davis, Clement Markert and Mark Nickerson. The men were suspended from the University for declining to answer questions on their political associations in 1954 when they testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, as they alleged to have been communists during the time of the Red Scare.

Introductory remarks of the lecture were made by associate history professor Melanie Tanielian and Elizabeth Moje, dean of the Marsal Family School of Education. Tanielian opened the lecture with an initial discussion of academic freedom and speech.

At the heart of academic freedom is the protection of free and open inquiry, including expression of controversial ideas that some may consider wrong or offensive, Tanielian said. Academic freedom not only protects faculty speech and teaching, research and institutional decision-making, it protects the right to address the larger community.

While talking about academic freedom, Tanielian emphasized the importance of factoring current global events into these conversations, specifically the ongoing impacts of the Israel-Hamas war.

Taking the stage, Friedman started his lecture by proposing questions regarding freedom of expression, free speech and academic freedom.

Now, in order to think and talk about academic freedom, and to talk about this moment that were in, its critical that we start with, What do we mean when we talk about free speech? Friedman said. What is academic freedom anyways? Is academic freedom free speech, and what the heck is free expression? These questions circle. Im going to try and make it as simple as possible, they all blur into one another.

Friedman continued with how academic freedom relates to international human rights and patriotism.

Friedman also discussed being uncomfortable in university settings when academic freedom is restricted, such as when books and media that reference LGBTQ+ rights or Black history are banned. He said he believes these feelings can be useful in sparking conversations regarding disagreeable issues in academic discourse.

We have to find some way of encouraging universities to be places where we might not all agree, we might not get closure on (issues), we might not solve the issues, but lets talk about it, Friedman said. Lets listen to each other a little bit.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, LSA junior Dana Minor attended the event and shared why she believes free speech can be effective.

Free speech is a murky area only because everyone wants it totally applied in their favor, Minor said. The only way that it can be effective is if we are objective and neutral about it and let everyone express themselves. Let free speech actually be free speech, rather than tailoring it to our biases.

Daily Staff Reporter Ellen Drejza can be reached at edrejza@umich.edu. Daily News Contributor Anushka Patil can be reached at panushka@umich.edu.

Originally posted here:
UMich faculty speak on academic freedom and free speech - The Michigan Daily

Remembering Frank Borman

Re: Frank Borman Commander of Apollo 8 flight, Friday Metro & Business obituary.

Frank Borman was truly an Apollo space program hero. When the lunar landing vehicle tests in Earth orbit were delayed, NASA reassigned his flight, Apollo 8, to a daunting and very risky mission to orbit the moon.

On Dec. 21, 1968, he, James Lovell and William Anders were launched on the first manned launch from Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center, in the second crewed flight of the newly redesigned Apollo spacecraft, and atop only the third launch of the powerful Saturn V rocket.

Opinion

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

They were the first human beings to be free of Earths gravity, and they successfully orbited the moon 10 times, returning to Earth on Dec. 27. During the flight, they took photos and gathered celestial navigation information that would be useful for follow-on Apollo flights. In addition, they took the iconic photo of earthrise and performed the inspired Christmas Eve readings from the Book of Genesis.

With the Vietnam War raging, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, and mass civil unrest causing riots in major cities, 1968 was a tumultuous year. Bormans flight helped to close 1968 with a much-needed national triumph.

Edgar J. Manton, Heath

The Nov. 9 Letters to the Editor had three letters speaking to the kind of things we should be voting for and the kind of fears we should have about the promises of revenge being made by former President Donald Trump if he is re-elected. All three letters are spot on.

While reading them, something that I saw on a newscast after the Tuesday elections came to mind. It was something former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said, and it is not the first time Ive heard it expressed. Santorum stated that pure democracies are not the way to run a country.

This is perhaps the most insidious thing I have heard. It is a seemingly off-the-cuff but devastatingly destructive phrase.

I suppose people who think in this way are people who believe in the divine right of kings, a belief that leaders are handpicked by God to rule. This belief held sway for a very long time in history.

This is the very thing our Founding Fathers wrote about and fought against. It was their hope to move history toward a time when the rights of individuals held sway. That has been so with greater and lesser success.

Weber Baker, Farmers Branch

Re: Colleges must not cower before protesters, by Morgan Marietta, Wednesday Opinion.

Thank you for printing this essay by Morgan Marietta. Marietta has been in the news regarding a public discussion at UT-Arlington. Im glad Marietta was given a place to express the issues of free speech.

Some decades ago, I was privileged to have Allan Saxe as one of my professors at UTA. Several times over the course of the semester, Saxe would realize he had said something that my fellow students were passionate about. It would yield a funny, intriguing, informative and in-depth discussion of events and politics.

Near the end of each class, Saxe would laugh and tell us the importance of listening and learning from each other, no matter the topic and views.

Several years ago, Saxe was the keynote speaker at a function I attended where he discussed the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution. I spoke with him afterward to thank him for teaching me to think all those years ago. He quietly told me that our world was changing and he probably could not teach the same today. I am saddened to see that Saxe seems correct after the events Marietta was part of.

Ray Janes, Highland Village

Its time to respond to the political sound bites regarding Joe Bidens economy. Since our countrys inception, our presidents have taken the mostly undeserved credit and blame for our good and bad economies.

While the president can influence economic policy through various means, including fiscal and regulatory measures, the economy is a complex system that is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are beyond the control of any single individual or administration.

Several key factors can affect the economy, among them global economic trends, technological advancements and natural disasters. The U.S. economy is affected by the actions of the Federal Reserve, Congress and various other governmental and nongovernmental entities, as well as by the decisions and actions of businesses and consumers.

Economic changes often take time to materialize, and it can be challenging to attribute specific economic outcomes solely to the actions of any one president. When evaluating the state of the economy, it is essential to consider a wide range of factors, both domestic and international, that contribute to its performance.

Jerry Lawson, Allen

I recently attended a human trafficking lecture, and it occurred to me that our federal government is allowing humans to cross our border, and our state government is trafficking these humans into our country. There is very little common sense on display here, just a lot of political posturing.

While political posturing may be good for campaign contributions, it does nothing to help our nation. Rather than all this nonsensical grandstanding, can our federal and state governments not work together to address and, hopefully, solve this severe crisis that is so detrimental to our national well-being?

Jaime Vela, Denton

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com

See original here:
Letters to the Editor Astronaut Borman, UTA free speech, economy, border crisis - The Dallas Morning News

College campuses would not flourish without the freedom of speech, said a First Amendment lawyer on free speech at an on-campus forum.

Not only is free speech important, but there is particular solicitude for it on our university and college campuses, said Ronnie London, a general counsel lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

London spoke on Wednesday, Sept. 27, at the Universitys First Amendment Forum and clarified what the highly debated amendment protects and what it does not. He explained that certain categories of speechsuch as true threats, fighting words, fraud, blackmailare classified as unprotected speech.

Part of utilizing free speech rights, said London, is recognizing ones ability to disagree with others. He called this an internally radical idea that uses speech and not force to resolve our differences.

Story continues below advertisement

Nobody is infallible. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, and there is no authority out thereor there should be no authority out thereto decide for every single individual what the truth is, he said. Wars and crusades and persecution should not be the ideal. Its not healthy for anyone, and it rarely actually solves anything.

London highlighted Sweezy v. New Hampshire, a 1957 United States Supreme Court case pertaining to the role of free speech at a state university. In the case, a professor had gone to jail for refusing to answer questions about a lecture he had given; however, the court ruled the jailing as a violation of due process, and he was released.

London labeled this case as one of the first to seek judgment on the First Amendment as it applied to a college campus.

He went on to talk about hate speech and how different groups of people may define it differently, saying that it is in the eye of the beholder.

It is not for an official body, like the university, like the government, to pick sides on those issues, London said.

While the term hate speech can be subjective, speech that brings direct discriminatory harassment is punishable by those institutions. However, to reach punishment, London said that the speech must reach a high level of discrimination.

He defined discriminatory harassment as an action so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive and targeted to an individual or group of individuals that it effectively bars the victims access to educational opportunities or benefits.

Additionally, London said that when a person confronts an idea that upsets them, sometimes ignorance is bliss.

I find ignoring things to be terribly underrated, he said.

London also said that silencing the opposite side can do more harm than good.

Youve lost the opportunity to persuade them that theyre wrong, he said. Also, youve lost the opportunity to persuade everyone else who might see it.

Speaking up is not to be confused with censorship, though, he said.

Once you try and shut down that speaker, youre not speaking anymore. Youre censoring, London said.

London believes that free speech is a vital part of our society, an idea that University President Brad D. Smith agrees with.

The right to free speech is the most foundational element of our democracy and of our country, Smith said. What we learned here today is what is offensive, or what ends up being defensive, is a very individual interpretation, and its not subject to an institution to make that decision.

He went on to say, This is a skill we have to develop in ourselves and we have to learn to understand and appreciate others.

First Lady Alys Smith, meanwhile, said that the presence of free speech is a needed element on campus.

Free speech is exactly what we need so that people have the free exchange of ideas, she said. Its the only way we learn from each other, even if we dont like what we hear.

Read more here:
First Amendment Forum Discusses Free Speech - The Parthenon - MU The Parthenon

Artificial intelligence could be used to disrupt U.S. election campaigns, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration said during a Wednesday hearing.

But the hearing showed that imposing laws and regulations on campaign content without violating constitutional rights to political speech will be difficult.

Elections pose a particular challenge for AI, an emerging technology with potential to affect many industries and issues, committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said. AI can make it easier to doctor photos and videos, creating fictional content that appears real to viewers.

Klobuchar called that untenable for democracy.

Klobuchar said the hearing underscored the need for Congress to impose guardrails for the use of AI in elections. Klobuchar is the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill, with Republicans Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, that would ban the use of AI to make deceptive campaign materials.

With AI, the rampant disinformation we have seen in recent years will quickly grow in quantity and quality, she said. We need guardrails to protect our elections.

But some Republicans on the panel, and two expert witnesses, also warned that regulating AIs use in elections would be difficult and perhaps unwise because of the potential impact on First Amendment-protected political speech.

A law prohibiting AI-generated political speech would also sweep an enormous amount of protected and even valuable political discourse under its ambit, said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for TechFreedom, a technology think tank.

Klobuchar twice used an example of AI-generated deep-fake images, meaning wholly false images meant to look real, that appeared to show former President Donald Trump hugging Anthony Fauci. Fauci is the former leader of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is deeply unpopular with some sections of the Republican electorate because of his positions on COVID-19.

The images were used in a campaign ad by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who along with Trump, is running for the 2024 Republican nomination for president.

Trevor Potter, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, testified that election laws are intended to help voters by requiring transparency about who pays for political speech and who is speaking. AI could upend those goals and make interference by foreign or domestic adversaries easier, he said.

Unchecked, the deceptive use of AI could make it virtually impossible to determine who is truly speaking in a political communication, whether the message being communicated is authentic or even whether something being depicted actually happened, Potter said. This could leave voters unable to meaningfully evaluate candidates and candidates unable to convey their desired message to voters, undermining our democracy.

Klobuchar asked the panel of five witnesses if they agreed AI posed at least some risk to elections, which they appeared to affirm.

Misinformation and disinformation in elections is particularly important for communities of color, said Maya Wiley, the CEO of the Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights.

Black communities and those whose first language is not English have been disproportionately targeted in recent elections, including material generated by Russian agents in 2016, she said.

Misinformation in campaigns has been attempted without AI, said Neil Chilson, a researcher at the Center For Growth And Opportunity at Utah State University. Deception, not the technology, is the problem, he said.

If the concern is with a certain type of outcome, lets focus on the outcome and not the tools used to create it, Chilson said in response to questioning from ranking Republican Deb Fischer of Nebraska.

Writing legislation narrowly enough to target deceptive uses of AI without interfering with common campaign practices would be difficult, Chilson said.

I know we all use the term deep fake, but the line between deep fake and tweaks to make somebody look slightly younger in their ad is pretty blurry, Chilson said. And drawing that line in legislation is very difficult.

If a federal law existed, especially with heavy penalties, the result would be to chill a lot of speech, he added.

U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican, said he didnt trust the Biden administration and Congress to properly balance concerns about fraudulent material with speech rights and fostering the emergence of AI, which has the potential for many positive uses in addition to possible nefarious ones.

While he said he saw issues with AI, Congress should be careful in its approach, he said.

Congress and the Biden administration should not engage in heavy-handed regulation with uncertain impacts that I believe pose a great risk to limiting political speech, he said. We shouldnt immediately indulge the impulse for government to just do something, as they say, before we fully understand the impacts of the emerging technology, especially when that something encroaches on political speech.

Responding to Hagerty, Klobuchar promoted her bill that would ban outright fraud that is created by AI.

That is untenable in a democracy, she said.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon testified that while it may be difficult for courts and lawmakers to determine what content crosses a line into fraud, there are ways to navigate those challenges.

Sen. Hagerty is correct and right to point out that this is difficult and that Congress and any legislative body needs to get it right, he said. But though the line-drawing exercise might be difficult, courts are equipped to draw that line.

Congress should require disclaimers for political ads that use AI, but such a requirement shouldnt replace the power to have content removed from television, radio and the internet if it is fraudulent, Klobuchar said.

She added that in addition to banning the most extreme fraud, her priorities in legislation that could see action this year would be to give the FEC more authority to regulate AI-generated content, and requiring disclaimers from platforms that carry political ads.

Read the original here:
U.S. Senate panel weighs free speech and deep fakes in AI ... - Minnesota Reformer

A former law lecturer who has raised tens of thousands of pounds to bring an unfair dismissal case against the Open University has claimed that universities remain largely oblivious to their academic freedom responsibilities, despite recent legislation.

Almut Gadows case has been championed by critics of universities who say institutions have endemic issues with free speech and academic freedom. Her crowdfunder, which has raised its initial target of 70,000, is being supported by the Free Speech Union.

She alleges that she was fired from the UKs biggest higher education provider for questioning gender identity-based changes to the curriculum.

The OUsaid her dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld on appeal and that it rejected the offensive and spurious allegations she has made.

Her case focuses on the universitys law school which like many academic departments has been attempting to liberate its degree programmes. Dr Gadow said this included instructions to teach students about diverse gender identities and to use the preferred pronouns of offenders in case studies. She objected to this, saying it conflicted with a lawyers role of focusing on the facts of a case and was adistraction for students.

I dont object to some people having this agenda in the same way as I dont mind people having whatever politics they choose to, Dr Gadow told Times Higher Education.

What I mind is academic institutions feeling that they can force academics to become conduits of that agenda. Thats what I am trying to challenge.

Dr Gadow said she had repeatedly attempted to question the changes, including on an online staff forum, but her posts were removed by management.

Questioning what is in module materials has always been a part of what tutors do, said Dr Gadow, who worked for the OU for nearly a decade.

Normally when one raises these kinds of issues, provided you do it courteously, the answer would always be, Thanks, well have another look at it.

From the very first time I raised issues of gender, the answer was, We will not change any material in this regard full stop, and this is the last thing we will say about it.

The case comes after the passing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which created a new free speech champion post within the Office for Students, now held by Arif Ahmed, and handed the regulator new powers to enforce free speech responsibilities. Dr Gadow said time will tell whether this would have made a difference to her case.

I could have gone to the free speech tsar, and he certainly could have intervened to some extent, Dr Gadow said. Iknow some academics think he will go in and sort it all out, but if you have ever looked at regulation, you will know that is not really likely.

Even where a regulator finds one of the entities it regulates to be breaking the law, in the overwhelming majority of cases they do no more than provide words of advice.

Universities can also be sued under the new act when it fully comes into force, but Dr Gadows case instead draws on Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UKs Equality Act in an attempt to entrench academic freedom protections in employment law.

In theory, it is already the case that human rights law protects academic freedom to a very high degree, she said. But it has never been put before a judge, so in practice universities are largely oblivious to this.

A spokesperson for the OU said: Almut Gadow was dismissed after a finding of gross misconduct. The dismissal was upheld at an appeal hearing chaired by an independent and senior barrister.

Since being dismissed, Almut Gadow has made a series of offensive and spurious allegations online which we reject in the strongest of terms. We welcome the opportunity the tribunal hearing provides to present our evidence about the facts of this case.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

Read the original:
What can Gadow case tell us about free speech? - Times Higher Education

Unifying moments worthy of celebration are woefully rare in modern politics. Especially when it comes to free speech.

New Jersey just earned one.

Thats because Gov. Phil Murphy recently signed a new law passed unanimously by both houses of the legislature that strengthens the free speech rights of all New Jerseyans.

The law, called the Uniform Public Expression Act (UPEPA), is whats known as an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. SLAPPs are lawsuits aimed at preventing speakers from exercising political speech rights, usually using a meritless defamation claim as the pretense for a suit. Without anti-SLAPP protections, plaintiffs with deep pockets can use costly litigation to silence speech they dont like.

Laws like UPEPA help speakers of all kinds defend themselves against SLAPPs. Without such defenses, the burdens and costs of fighting SLAPPs can not only crush political speech but can also be personally and financially devastating to speakers targeted by such lawsuits. Moreover, in jurisdictions without anti-SLAPP protections, the looming threat of potential SLAPPs chill speech. This means that would-be speakers will avoid speaking in the first place for fear of suffering serious consequences merely for exercising their First Amendment rights.

In passing UPEPA, New Jersey joins 32 other states and the District of Columbia as jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP laws. Even better, New Jersey becomes the 20th state to pass a strong anti-SLAPP law. New Jersey previously had no anti-SLAPP protection at all, which prompted it to earn a grade of F in the Institute for Free Speechs 50-state Anti-SLAPP Report Card.

UPEPA dramatically improves that dismal free-speech landscape. The law closely tracks the model anti-SLAPP language recommended by the respected, nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission. This language ensures that an anti-SLAPP law contains key provisions that enhance deterrence of SLAPPs.

These provisions help to deter SLAPPs and minimize litigation costs for defendants, including permitting a winning defendant to recover an award of costs and attorney fees. Other essential provisions include a requirement that plaintiffs show that they have a legitimate case early in the proceedings. Defendants also have a right to an immediate appeal if the court denies an anti-SLAPP motion. Finally, the new law instructs judges to interpret the laws speech protections broadly, helping to ensure that those protections extend to expression on any matter of public concern.

The effectiveness of this language and the importance of such laws have attracted the support of groups from across the political spectrum. In fact, a diverse coalition of 28 signers, including organizations such as the ACLU, National Right to Life, International Association of Better Business Bureaus, Motion Picture Association, and the News Media Alliance, published an open letter in support of the Uniform Law Commissions model UPEPA in 2022, with the Institute for Free Speech as an organizing member.

This wide range of support reflects the positive impact that anti-SLAPP laws have on the fundamental right to free expression. Even in these politically charged times, anti-SLAPP laws often enjoy tremendous bipartisan support because they safeguard everyones right to free speech.

That was certainly the case in New Jersey. The bill that became UPEPA had deep bipartisan sponsorship and passed without a single no vote in either the Assembly or the Senate.

Now, New Jerseyans of either party or no party can celebrate the fact that their elected officials have not only addressed a significant legal shortcoming in the state, but they have done so with a new law that is among the strongest in the entire country.

As a result, New Jersey speakers can speak more freely, secure in the knowledge that they enjoy legal protections against those who would silence them.

David Keating, of Chevy Chase, Md., is the president of the Washington-based Institute for Free Speech.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original post:
NJ flips to strongly protecting free speech from lawsuits, by David ... - Press of Atlantic City

Earlier this week, EFF joined the ACLU and 59 partner organizations to send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging the Senate to reject the STOP CSAM Act. This bill threatens encrypted communications and free speech online, and would actively harm LGBTQ+ people, people seeking reproductive care, and many others. EFF has consistently opposed this legislation. This bill has unacceptable consequences for free speech, privacy, and security that will affect how we connect, communicate, and organize.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESSNOT TO OUTLAW ENCRYPTED APPS

The STOP CSAM Act, as amended, would lead to censorship of First Amendment protected speech, including speech about reproductive health, sexual orientation and gender identity, and personal experiences related to gender, sex, and sexuality. Even today, without this bill, platforms regularly remove content that has vague ties to sex or sexuality for fear of liability. This would only increase if STOP CSAM incentivized apps and websites to exercise a heavier hand at content moderation.

If enacted, the STOP CSAM Act will also make it more difficult to communicate using end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encrypted communications cannot be read by anyone but the sender or recipient that means authoritarian governments, malicious third parties, and the platforms themselves can read user messages. Offering encrypted services could open apps and websites up to liability, because a court could find that end-to-end encryption services are likely to be used for CSAM, and that merely offering them is reckless.

Congress should not pass this law, which will undermine security and free speech online. Existing law already requires online service providers who have actual knowledge of CSAM on their platforms to report that content to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a quasi-government entity that works closely with law enforcement agencies. Congress and the FTC have many tools already at their disposal to tackle CSAM, some of which are not used.

Go here to read the rest:
EFF, ACLU and 59 Other Organizations Demand Congress Protect ... - EFF