Category Archives: Free Speech

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

Photo: SOPA Images / Getty Images (Getty Images)

Lets talk about free speech: It is, after all, our constitutional right to talk about whatever we want, but since the Constitution imposes few limits on what we can say, people say inaccurate things all the timeincluding about the First Amendment. Lets clear some of that up since were, you know, allowed to.

First, heres what the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cool, so what does all of that mean? Clay Calvert, a professor at the University of Florida, broke it down in a chat with Lifehacker, explaining that while most of us are familiar with our right to choose our own religion or the press right to report freely on current events, the rights to peaceful assembly or to petition the government for grievances often go overlooked.

Regarding the First Amendments wording, he added, Congress doesnt just mean Congress. The Supreme Court has told us it includes any local, state, or federal entity or official. So, no governing entity can make a law that restricts free speech, butand this is keythe First Amendment only protects us against censorship by government entities or officials.

G/O Media may get a commission

You can worship however you want, write whatever you want, and say whatever you want. The government cant punish or censor you. If you are a parent who wants to cause a bit of a scene at a school board meeting, its covered by your right to petition for redress of grievances. If you are a professional football player who wants to kneel in protest of police brutality and systemic racism, that counts as symbolic expression, and you are free to do that. If you are smartphone owner who wants to bang out a few tweets about how much representatives on one side of the aisle or the other suck, go right aheadeven when you insult government officials directly, they cannot penalize you.

In 1989, the Supreme Court even maintained that burning an American flag is a constitutional right, five years after a man named Gregory Lee Johnson did just that during the 1984 Republican National Convention. He was convicted of the desecration of a venerated object in violation of the Texas Penal Code, but when his case made it to the Supreme Court a few years later, they ruled in favor of him, not Texas.

So, to be clear, the government cant do anything to stop you from saying whatever you wantbut private companies can. The government couldnt do anything to Colin Kaepernick when he took a knee, but the National Football League could. Officially, the NFL didnt penalize Kaepernick at first, even when then-President Donald Trump called for the organization to punish him and other players who protested, but its widely believed he was blackballed for his anthem protests, and he filed a since-settled grievance claiming teams were colluding to keep him out of the league in the aftermath. In 2018, owners in the league ruled that players could no longer kneel during the anthem.

The NFL is not the government. It can make rules like that. Any private company can step in and make rules against what sort of speech is and is not allowed when using its products or services, representing it publicly, or otherwise engaging with it contractually, in fact. You know where this is going.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution only protects us against censorship by government entities and officials. Most people fail to realize or understand that key fact. Twitter is a private entity; it is not a government entity, Calvert said. Therefore, Twitter is not subject to the First Amendment when it chooses to deplatform individuals or to remove tweets that violate its terms of use or terms of service. Its really much more of a contractual matter that if, when an individual signs up to join Twitter, they must comply with the terms of service or terms of use that Twitter specifies. If they violate them, then Twitter can remove them or remove a tweet and there is no First Amendment issue or violation whatsoever in that case. I think thats really the biggest misconception that people have, that private entities can be regulated by the First Amendment.

There are a few things that are not protected when it comes to the government, too: Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, for instance, nor is speech that is integral to criminal conduct. Direct threats are not protected. Obscenity is also not protected, but there is a whole host of other modifications there that allow content like, say, artistic nude photography or pornography to continue to be made. Calvert noted that while obscene speech has to be determined to be patently offensive in order not to be protected, if it can be shown to have literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, its fine. Plus, that is all based on contemporary community standards, he said, and definitions of obscenity are always evolving.

Note, finally, that though you can say whatever you want and the government cant stop you, people can also react however they see fit. If you say something offensive to a relative, that person can decide not to talk to you without infringing on your rights. If you badmouth your company in public, your boss can choose to fire you. Your First Amendment rights dont shelter you from any personal consequences that arise from exercising them.

The First Amendment is extremely important. Calvert pointed to other countries, like Russia or China, which limit peoples ability to criticize the government. In other countries, there can be serious repercussions for that, but here in America, you can post nasty memes about Republican Sen. Ted Cruz or Democratic President Joe Biden all day long and, as long as youre not directly threatening them, youre allowed to do it. Trump, also a Republican, is out of office now, but if you post memes about him, he may not see them, as he was banned from Twitter and most social media sites in 2021which, again, is not a violation of free speech in any way.

The way free speech tends to be discussed, however, you might not realize that the deplatforming of a then-president wasnt an attack on the First Amendment at all.

Billionaire Elon Musk acquired a 9.2% stake in Twitter recently, then offered to buy it earlier this week, writing in his filing, I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy. However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.

The debate about free speech will continue to rage on, even though the First Amendment has been pretty clear about what it includes since 1971. You are, of course, free to engage in the debate, but its best to do that armed with the facts and the knowledge that, again, private companies are not regulated by the First Amendment.

Excerpt from:
What Is Protected Free Speech (and What Isn't)? - Lifehacker

Editor's note:House Bill1190 prohibits universities from punishing a student organization if that organization requires its members to affirm their commitment to the organizations beliefs.The legislature'sprovision could help avoid a hecklers veto within student organizations and protect freedom of association.

Amidst a chorus of cheers, boos and "Let her finish" chants, conservative political commentatorAnn Coulter walked off the Whittenberger Auditoriumstage before college student Tara Layous finished asking her question.

Prior toits slightly fiery conclusion, the student action against Coulter'sappearance at Indiana University earlythis month was relatively restrained.There were no protesters picketing outside theevent. The nearby sidewalk's chalk work, sporting"Racist gathering" in bright pink letters with an arrow pointing toward the IMU, was the only prominent sign in the surrounding area. During Coulter's speech on the history of conservatism, the crowd's interruptions were sparse and far between.

More: IU waiting for instruction on Trump's campus speech order

It was only during the event's Q&A portion, when Coulter said Layous was taking too long to ask a question, that the mood shifted.

After a brief back and forth with a few audience members, Coulter left the stage. When asked why she was in such a hurry to shuffle along questions, Coulter responded she had a plane to catch. She noted the event, which was scheduled for 60 minutes, had already run over its allotted time.

Coulter later tweeted the event was "the funnest (sic)event I've done since COVID," with many questions from "the liberals, who were perfectly polite" until Layous' turn.

Immediately following the event, Layous, a senior at IU, told The Herald-Times she didn't come to the event as a protester. Layous said she didn't intend to prompt Coulter to leave and was disappointed the people after her didn't get to ask their own questions.

While Layous said she can't speak on whether free speech at Indiana University is protected as a whole, "I don't think it was (protected)today."

That's something state lawmakers sought to change during the most recent session of theIndiana General Assembly.Legislators intensified free speech protection oncollege campuses by passingHouse Bill 1190, which was later signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb.

Under this legislation, universities must create and publish clear policies on free speech rights and protections for students, faculty members and staff. Universities cannot prohibitprotected expressive activities atan outdoor, accessible area on campus,though they canenforce restrictions on the time, placeand manner.

The new law also requires universities to submit an annual report ofcomplaints to a higher education commission. If a student or student organization claims their right to free speech hasbeen violated on campus, theycan seek legal action, which could grant them upto $50,000, court costs andattorney's fees.

While the new law's stated purposeis to better protect speech, some have questioned whether its fine print will preserve or hinder a person's constitutional rights.

"The statute, whatever the intent of it might be, might actually chill protected speech instead of protect speech," said Joseph Tomain, a lecturer at IU's Maurer School of Law.

The legislation has drawn negative reactions from some IU faculty members, including Tomain.He describes himself as a fierce protectorof free speech and has dedicated his time both as a lawyer and educator to the topic.

"It's better to have some false speech be protected than it is to risk having truthful speech be unprotected. There is a cost to the United States' strong free speech protections, but ultimately, I think it's a cost worth paying in order to ensure that we have a functional democracy," Tomain said, noting that democracies work best when there's a free marketplace of ideas.

There are some aspects of the new law Tomain appreciates, such as requiring universities to have accessible free speech policies and attempting to bar counter-protesters from using a "heckler's veto,"which happens when a person or group who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to silence them through disruptive intervention.

Those positives aside, Tomain said he has some issues with the bill's language.

For example, the law defines"harassment" as speech or conduct that is unwelcome, severe, pervasive and "subjectively and objectively offensive" and results in a student being denied equal access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the institution.

"The definition of harassment is most likely in violation of the First Amendment," Tomain said. According to Tomain, the First Amendment protects speech that is unwelcome, severe and pervasive while also noting "offensive" is too subjective to be used in this context.

Tomain isn't the only one who has voiced reservations about the law. Speaking with Indiana education-focused publicationChalkbeat,Sheila Kennedy, a professor emeritus of law and public policy at IUPUI's Paul H. ONeill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, said the legislation could encourage additional litigation and complicatethe legal precedent of the First Amendment.

Tomain also took issue with the law's granting of legal proceedings if a student or student organization feels their right to free speech has been violated.

"The remedial provision here has the potential to chill speech if people start to be afraid that they're going to be sued, and not only have to pay for their own lawyers, but also potentially pay for the lawyers of the other side and the court costs," Tomain said.

While the statute explicitly states the university wouldcover the plaintiff's attorney fees if proven to be at fault,the statute does not limit who can be sued, according to Tomain.

While constitutional rights are protected against federal or state infringement, such as police, schools or Congress, Tomain noted it's possible for claims of free speech violationsto be brought against private citizens or groups.

"I'm not certain that this is the best way to protect free speech," Tomain said.

IU's free speech policy is posted onlineatfreespeech.iu.edu. The webpage features a note about campus diversity as well as a separate page answering frequently asked questions. Students can also contact faculty members who are considered experts on the First Amendment.

IU spokesman Chuck Carney said the webpage has been up for several years and was created after IU students began asking similar questions about their rights on campus.

"We wanted to have a central location to point people to in case they had questions," Carney said.

Since 2017, IU has enlisted the Demonstration Response and Safety Team, which includes volunteerfaculty members and student affairs professionals, to attend demonstrations, rallies andprotests held on campus.

At least two team members try to be at any demonstration on campus. The team members are passive observers who are there to answer any questions about a person's rights to free speech. They also ensure there arenodisruptions, such as a heckler's veto, that preventfreedom of expression.

DRST is currently led byKathy Adams Riester, associate vice provost for student affairs and executive associate dean of students, and Katie Paulin, assistant dean for student support and outreach. John Summerlot, the university coordinator of military andveteran services, previously led the team and still acts as a volunteer.

According toSummerlot, the team's formation was inspired by political scientistCharles Murray'scontroversial visit to IU's campus in April 2017. Murray, who identifies as a libertarian, has been accused of promoting racist views.

More: The price of free speech: Murray's visit and accompanying protests cost IU nearly $15,000

"We didn't have anybody versed in freedom of speech on campus,"Summerlot noted.

According to Carney, the new law won't lead to any major changes at IU. The university already has some of the legislation's stipulations in place, such as the published free speech policy. The university also regularly updates its free speech policies and procedures to stay in adherence to best practices and guidelines, he said.

According to Carney, IU was ultimately supportive of the new law.

"We felt like this was something that we certainly were comfortable with, because we knew that we were already implementing many of the things that were put in place," Carney said.

Though the law could conceivably be challenged in court later on, it is currently in place foruniversities in Indiana.

Contact Rachel Smithat rksmith@heraldt.com or @RachelSmithNews on Twitter.

Read more:
New Indiana law is meant to protect free speech at universities. It may do the opposite. - The Herald-Times

As extremist politicians like Florida Gov. Rick DeSantis seek to reignite a culture war, targeting LGBTQ+ youth by attempting to silence, erase, and isolate them through curriculum censorship, book bans, and other divisive tactics, people across the country are taking notice and pushing back. Poll after poll indicates that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to these efforts to punish and target LGBTQ+ youth. While extremist politicians are seeking to advance an agenda of discrimination, theyre triggering a larger backlash against their actions in states across the country. Below is a brief snapshot of the issue including updated, previously unreleased data from HRC, and important context to better understand the current state of play, the impact of the policy, and the publics response.

STATE OF PLAY

WHAT THESE BILLS DO

These bills effectively aim to prevent the discussion LGBTQ+ issues or people in education settings.

This means teachers would be prevented from providing a safe, inclusive classroom for all students.

The Florida law blocks teachers from talking about LGBTQ+ issues or people, further stigmatizing LGBTQ+ people and isolating LGBTQ+ kids. It also undermines existing protections for LGBTQ+ students.

The Alabama law bans any acknowledgement of sexual orientation or gender identity in classrooms from kindergarten through fifth grade.

South Dakotas law prohibits state education officials from compelling either students or teachers to agree with "divisive concepts" meaning, acknowledgment of privileges and inequities in our society.

Youth living in states with enumerated antibullying laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity report less homophobic victimization and harassment than do students who attend schools in states without these protections.

LGBTQ+ students in schools with LGBTQ+ supporting clubs and sexual orientation & gender identity resources often report feeling safer and are less likely to report depressive symptom, substance use, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors in comparison with students in schools lacking such resources.

86% of LGBTQ+ youth report they have been targets of bullying, harassment, or assault at school.

Studies have shown that bullying and harassment of LGBTQ+ youth contribute to high rates of absenteeism, dropout, adverse health consequences, and academic underachievement.

A recent Trevor Project survey showed that a startling 85% of transgender or gender non-binary youth say their mental health has been negatively affected by the current wave of legislative attacks.

AMERICANS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSE CENSORSHIP AND BOOK BANS

87% of Americans do not think books should be banned for discussing race or slavery. 85% do not think books should be banned for political ideas you disagree with. 83% do not think books should be banned for criticizing US history. [CBS poll, 2/15-18]

Seventy-one percent of likely voters including 66 percent of Independents and 64 percent of Republicans believe that local school boards should not have the authority to ban books from school curriculums. [Data for Progress poll, 2/11-13]

By a 60-point margin, Americans oppose banning books in public schools. When described as a growing push to remove certain books from schools across the country, including the graphic novel Maus about the Holocaust, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Color Purple, and 1984, more than three in four Americans oppose the banning of books in public schools (16 percent support 76 percent oppose). Opposition is strong across partisanship, with opposition from almost four in five Republicans (78 percent) and about three in four Democrats and Independents (74 and 76 percent, respectively). [Navigator poll, 2/17-22]

74% support adding more books in English classes by authors who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color. [PIE Network poll, 11/21]

Based on National Parents Unions national polling and meetings with parents all over the country, Keri Rodrigues, co-founder and president of the organization, says restricting how teachers can talk about race or gender "is really at the bottom of the list" of parental priorities. [National Parents Union]

STUDENTS, TEACHERS, PARENTS & LIBRARIANS ARE STANDING UP AND SPEAKING OUT

This bill is condemning the LGBTQ+ community to death. If you're telling a child that is gay or whatever sexuality, that they're going to hell, or that they need to be quiet and not share with the class, that's just going to cause so much inner trauma and conflict and if they don't have a support system to turn to ... what do you think is going to happen with this child? They're either going to pretend to be someone that they're not or they're going to go through depression and anxiety and even possible self-harm and suicide attempts. CJ Walden, a high school senior in Boca Raton, Florida [CNN, Apr. 1, 2022]

I ignored [my sexuality] for a really long time. And I think that as a young girl, if a book showed me that this is a life that could be lived, I could have had a lot more peace and coming to terms with bisexuality, high school senior Gabrielle Izu, at James E. Taylor High School in the Katy Independent School District, Texas [LA Times, Nov. 8, 2021]

When I first decided, like, oh, I dont really feel like a girl at all, or I dont always feel like a girl. I felt sort of like I didn't know how to feel about that. But when I realized that that was completely normal, having media that showed that was really helpful. Saffy Cousins, 6th grader in the Orange County Public School system, Florida [First Coast News, Dec. 7, 2021]

I really feel like, by them banning this book, its just spreading the message that its not OK to be gay, especially in school. For me, its not necessarily about the book. Its more about the message that banning the book spread. I just feel like they need to stop spreading the message that everybody has to be the same and being gay isnt OK. ... If I picked one thing to come out of this, its to have more of an accepting school. Alek Burgess, eighth grade student at Bayfield Middle School, Colorado [Durango Herald, Oct. 8, 2021]

I think that [placing an age restriction] creates a harmful environment in the school surrounding LGBTQ+ issues. It makes it seem as though gender expression and sexuality are issues reserved for adults, while there are many students at the school who identify with the LGBTQ+ community. Junior Kate Johnson, Lake Forest High School, Illinois [The Forest Scout, Feb. 25, 2022]

I'm straight. I've never gone through what my LGBTQ+ students have, but I know that they're at a higher risk of bullying, they are higher risk for suicide, and I can never imagine what they're going through. The only thing that I can do is just try to be someone on this campus who they know that I'm going to support them and be in their corner. Meghan Mayer, a middle school reading teacher in Sarasota, Florida [CNN, Apr. 1, 2022]

Jeanne Nettles, who teaches 7th and 8th grade in St. Johns County, Florida, said the bill could make some of her students such as those with two moms or two dads feel like they need to hide parts of themselves at school. Are they not allowed to talk about their home life? What are you trying to tell them by saying you cant talk about it? she said in an interview after the school day had ended. [The 19th, Feb. 9, 2022]

Austin Johnson, who teaches sociology at Kenyon College and studies LGBTQ+ health, said that, if he had been able to learn about what being transgender meant in high school especially from a teacher that would have alleviated the despair that enveloped him; despair that he couldnt understand or find words for on his own. I think it would have totally changed my life, he said. I think that I would have made different choices in terms of self care. I didnt know myself, so it was hard to care for myself. [The 19th, Feb. 9, 2022]

For Clinton McCracken, who has taught art for 21 years at Howard Middle School Academy of Arts in Orlando, this law feels like a hateful, personal attack. McCracken points to a 2021 survey from the Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide prevention organization for LGBTQ youth, which found that 42% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year. "I can tell you as someone who grew up as a gay boy, how real that statistic is," he says, "and how dangerous it is that these Republican legislators are playing with the safety of our vulnerable youth. This is a created culture war from [Gov. DeSantis] so that he can achieve his political ambitions. That's all this is. So yeah, I'm not teaching kids how to be gay in my classroom, but I'll tell you what I am doing. I am trying with all my power to teach kids to be OK with who they are." [NPR, Mar. 30, 2022]

They are creating policies restricting the freedoms for students to be themselves biding with families that insist their heterosexual or cisgender children should feel comfortable in the school environment, essentially by never interacting with beliefs or people who are at odds with their own. We do not debate the existence of groups of people or their right to exist because they exist whether we believe they do," she added. "We should not be prioritizing one student's comfort over another student's very existence. Mae Christiansen, sociology teacher at H.G. Hill Middle School in Tennessee [The Tennessean, April 14, 2021]

I think that the LGBTQ community has consistently tried to make the life of LGBTQ people who come after them better. What I hope will continue to happen now that this bill has become a law, is that people will rise up, people will speak up, families like mine will step further into the light. We know what it's like to have to fight for this. And this family that we have, we're incredibly proud of it and nobody is going to silence us. Nobody is going to make us hide." Janelle Perez, a wife and mother living in Miami, Florida [ABC News, Mar. 30, 2022].

It is suicide prevention, in my view. You know, a lot of LGBTQ+ kids arent comfortable coming out to their parents, theyre scared. And so having a book like this in the school library is giving them a lifeline. Jen Cousins, mother of nonbinary 6th grader in Orange County Public School system, Florida [First Coast News, Dec. 7, 2021]

It is our job as parents to make sure these books do not disappear, Stephana Ferrell, Orange County, Florida, mother [First Coast News, Dec. 7, 2021]

We havent seen or heard of challenges like these probably in the last 40 years. Its definitely become politicized. Shirley Robinson, executive director of the 5,000-member Texas Library Association [LA Times, Nov. 8, 2021]

Banning a book is, in my opinion, never justified. If a library or district has a strong collection development policy and a certified professional librarian in charge of that, banning should never be necessary." San Antonio, Texas, middle school librarian Carrie Damon [LA Times, Nov. 8, 2021]

Freedom to read is a right that must be protected in our schools and public libraries, and we must not give in to the vocal few that want to speak for the many, Austin, Texas, Public Library Director Roosevelt Weeks [LA Times, Nov. 8, 2021]

That one family may choose not to read something does not determine whether or not it's appropriate for another family. Jaime Prothro, Wichita, Kansas, director of libraries [The Kansas City Beacon, Nov. 30, 2021]

Not only do librarians face the challenge of ensuring that all students are able to see a reflection of themselves in the books they read, but they are also charged with the responsibility of helping explore worlds outside of their own and develop empathy for others. Davina Sauthoff, the Executive Director of the Utah Education Library Media Association [Fox13 Salt Lake City, Dec. 14, 2021]

The Human Rights Campaign is Americas largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ+ people are embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community.

Follow this link:
Education Censorship, Book Bans, and Attacking Free Speech: Setting the Record Straight as Extremist Politicians in Florida, Alabama and Other States...

AUSTIN, TXAccording to the latest reports, inflation has hit a 40-year high affecting the prices of many consumer goods. However, one consumer staple is actually at an all-time high. Speech, which as recently as earlier this year was free, is now valued at $43 billion.

The free exchange of ideas has been under attack, causing massive inflation under the Biden presidency, explained Joe Squawk of CNBC. It used to be that people could argue about all kinds of things on Twitter, a bastion of free speech. Then liberals started saying a lot of dumb things, and conservatives started making fun of them. So, the liberals started crying a lot, and the people working at Twitter just started kicking the conservatives off so no one would laugh at them for being dumb.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has explained that free speech isnt free anymore because it isnt important for people to just say what they think. It takes a lot of money to run a social network in a way that protects approved speech and suppresses or blocks unapproved speech.

Liberals like me are smart and sensitive, explained Agrawal, and people shouldnt challenge our ideas or laugh at us. If conservatives cant play by those rules, they can just go make their own social network.

Elon Musk has offered $43 billion to restore free speech for Twitter, which appears to be the market rate, though some liberals at Twitter are rejecting the deal, saying free speech is "dangerous and shouldn't be freely available on the streets of America for any price."

Mandy is absolutely triggered by Twitter's possible takeover by Elon Musk. She attends a Twitter-sponsored therapy session to help her cope.

Link:
Due To Inflation, Cost Of Free Speech Rises Sharply To $43 Billion - The Babylon Bee

A Shawnee State University professor has settled for $400,000 in a lawsuit against his employer, arguing it was within his First Amendment rights to refuse using the preferred pronouns of a student who identifies as female.

Nicholas Meriwether, a Shawnee philosophy professor, was issued a written rebuke after a 2018 Title IX investigation into the situation, prompting the lawsuit, which was originally dismissed in February 2020, when a lower district court found there were no broader societal concerns, but revived by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Shawnee State University, located in Portsmouth, Ohio, agreed to settle the case Thursday. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Meriwether, released a statement saying the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwethers attorneys fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuits ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether.

Shawnee State University issued a statement saying its decision to settle was made for economic reasons.

"Though we have decided to settle, we adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion," the statement said. "Over the course of this lawsuit, it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at a cost to the university and its students. That cost is better spent on fulfilling Shawnee States mission of service to our students, families and community."

WATCH: POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR PEACE IN 'EASTER OF WAR MESSAGE

ADF praised the outcome, noting that the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex."

In the case, Meriwether argued he was standing by his Christian beliefs in refusing to use the preferred pronouns of the student and that he instead offered to call his students by either Mr. or Ms. and their last name, or simply by their last name.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldnt endorse an ideology that he believes is false, ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham said. Were pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwether and every other American the right to speak and act in a manner consistent with ones faith and convictions.

Read the original:
University settles with professor in free speech case over pronoun use - Washington Examiner

We invited you to share your opinion on if Elon Musk should use his clout on Twitter to get Donald Trump back on the platform. The Tesla and SpaceX guru owns nearly 9% of Twitters stock and is a champion of free speech. We said he should bring Trump back in our editorial. Many agree on our online poll, others not so much. Heres what you said in emails to our new quick-hit comment line Kvetch@bostonherald.com.

* * * *

Until Twitter becomes a platform for free speech, I will stay away. I am shocked at the number of freedom-loving Americans who feed this biased platform. Can Elon Musk jump in and save Facebook and YouTube as well? Your closing quote from George Washington says it all.

Elizabeth

The Washington quote: If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

* * * *

I am a 62-year-old veteran from Cape Cod sending a quick note in response to your Elon Musk should lift Trumps Twitter ban article. Thank you for the opportunity.

I am a lifelong Republican. I voted for Trump twice. My wife is still a supporter while I am not.

Yes, Twitter should allow Trump back on and my reasoning is the same as Mr. Musks, which is in support of free speech. Let him drive the left even more insane than they are now. Having said that, my feeling even at the time of Trumps inauguration, someone should have taken his phone and skipped it across the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool.

I blame Trump entirely for his not being re-elected. His policies were great and they were working. America has suffered greatly under this new administration and the damage is only 25% done. Had Trump not acted and spoken like an infantile ass for his entire presidency, the world would look a lot different today.

Unfortunately Trumps rhetoric and behavior provided the left with all of the ammunition needed to thwart him in every way possible.No one is better at underhanded sleaze than the dems and their media cohorts, and Trump licensed them to do all of it and more.

Trump will not be re-elected because he will not get the nomination if he does decide to run. I pray he does not. Clearly these next election cycles are a blatant opportunity for sanity to begin to return to the White House & Congress. The greatest impediment to that would be a Trump nomination.

What we need is a president that is presidential; a leader that has some inkling of what decorum is, and a president that will enact the Trump pro-American policies without the nonsense.

Steve Silva

* * * *

Of course Trump should be allowed on Twitter. Also, the U.S. and/or any company should never censor anybody or any organization unless they are directly promoting violence. When someone writes something offensive on Twitter there will be a slew of responding tweets that will confront said behavior. Thank you for asking.

Daniel

* * * *

Free Trump on twitter or whatever it is!

Allan

* * * *

Please do not let that toxic instigator back on confusing, upsetting and conning everyone.

Leah

* * * *

I absolutely feel that Donald Trump should be allowed back on Twitter. Jihadists and terrorists as well as anyone in the left can exercise their constitutional right to free speech on Twitter. It is only when someone from the right wants to speak out that Twitter shuts down their account. Heaven forbid that someone should post an opinion that disagrees with their far-left/woke ideology.

Andrea Thon

* * * *

To frame the ban in terms of freedom of speech is disingenuous. Trump is not being punished by the federal government for anything he posted on Twitter. Nor has Trump lost any freedom of speech protection.

Twitter is a private enterprise. Twitter has freedom of speech too and can use their own judgment to filter their content. Trump can start his own platform, although like everything else he does, his attempts to do so have failed spectacularly. Now that Trump is out of the presidency his words have less sway than when he was banned so lifting the ban would not be earth-shattering and would go unnoticed by most Americans.

Paul Dowd

Your opinions are welcome to Kvetch@bostonherald.com.

Read more:
Your Turn: Musk, Trump and Twitter at the crossroads of free speech - Boston Herald

For the 10 people who read my columns regularly (five of them being ATLs editorial staff), they might know it is now my eighth year writing for this website. So today, I think I can get away with writing about a topic that makes no sense. On that note, I want to write about freedom of speech.

In the past few years, most peoples thoughts about freedom of speech have changed to some degree. The topic has become confusing, divisive, and at times, contradictory.

One problem is how to handle two opposing groups who both claim to be exercising freedom of speech. For example, at least once a year, I hear about a protest at a college or law school because a controversial figure was invited to speak there. Some of the students disrupt the event by making noise or preventing people from entering the venue. Sometimes, they succeed in getting the event cancelled. The event organizers claim that the disruption or cancellation violates their right to free expression. But the protesters justify their action as protected speech.

So were the organizers or the protesters morally and legally correct? It depends on who you ask although I believe that in general, the group that resorts to fear and intimidation are likely in the wrong. But it doesnt matter because one day, events with controversial speakers will be conducted virtually. The speakers can stay at their home or office. It will be almost impossible to disrupt these events and attendees can feel comfortable attending anonymously if they choose to.

The second issue involving free speech is allegations of censorship or deplatforming by the major social media platforms, primarily to conservatives. Defenders say that they are private entities who should be allowed to moderate their platforms to combat misinformation and to protect the safety of their users.

The most well known example of censorship was when Twitter and Facebook fully or partially blocked the New York Posts coverage of Hunter Bidens laptop left at a computer repair shop. That laptop contained emails that suggested that the Ukrainian company Burisma was paying Hunter to get access to his father, Joe Biden, before he was president. Twitter later reversed the ban, with then CEO Jack Dorsey calling the ban unacceptable. Recently, the New York Times confirmed that the New York Posts coverage of the laptop was true.

Most would agree that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private entities that should not abide by First Amendment rules. In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, a recent Supreme Court case, the five conservative justices ruled that an organization merely hosting speech for others is not a traditional, public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

Also, users have the choice to use less censored/moderated social media platforms. They are out there and will likely gain more attention and users during the 2024 election year.

And the final modern free speech issue is cancel culture, or as some call it, accountability. The idea is that if you are caught in a compromising position (usually saying or doing something offensive) and it goes viral online, the internet mob will destroy you. If you have a job, your boss will be pressured to fire you and you will be unemployable for the foreseeable future. If you own a business, it will be deluged with negative reviews in the hopes of driving away customers and shutting it down.

Cancel culture has been praised because it allowed ordinary people to take down or influence powerful people who are normally untouchable because of their influence or wealth. But it has been criticized for chilling speech on controversial topics, punishing past behavior that may have been socially acceptable at the time, the social punishment being excessive to average people and being inconsistently applied, usually with punishments being harsher to conservatives.

Cancel culture is also affecting the legal profession as some law firms must think about the negative public consequences of taking on an unpopular client. While representing unpopular people is something that lawyers must do from time to time, existing clients have been more vocal about threatening to stop doing business with the firms. While some firms can take the financial hit, others will get around this by working behind the scenes through a lesser-known law firm, or limiting the work to a few trusted partners on a very confidential basis.

But this can be troublesome in the criminal defense setting where this could bring up due process and right to counsel issues. Yes, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to competent counsel but not the counsel of your choice. Will the threat of cancel culture negatively affect a lawyers professional judgment that can result in deficient performance, thus raising a Strickland claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? It may result in retrials or even conviction reversals. But, in response, the internet mob might try to cancel culture the judge by encouraging a recall or impeachment campaign.

Today, due to excessive tribalism, freedom of speech seems to be used ironically as a sword rather than a shield. When I first started writing for Above The Law, I wrote anonymously for a number of reasons, one of them being so that I would be able to say what I wanted without worrying about the consequences. I know that most regular readers have a certain viewpoint and some of the writers here cater to it. But people should be free to express an unpopular opinion without having to worry about being moderated or cancelled. Because once in a while, the popular ideas are stupid.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him onLinkedIn.

View original post here:
Free Speech Has Become Confusing And Chaotic - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law

Think twice before you toot. House lawmakers are weighing whether to ban aggressive horn-honking.

The omnibus bike and traffic safety bill, sponsored by RepresentativesRebecca Kislak, Michelle McGaw, Liana Cassar, Brandon Potter and Teresa Tanzi, was presented to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night.

If enacted, it would institute a host of initiatives, such as:

Allowing cities and towns to reduce speed limits on state roads in densely populated areas

Establishing a training program to rehabilitate reckless drivers

Requiring the development of a school curriculum on traffic laws and bike safety

Outlawing horn-honking deemed unnecessary.

Anything other than honking to warn wouldnt be allowed. According to the bill, that means no honking to make an unreasonably loud or harsh sound and no honking at bicyclists unless a crash is imminent.

But the proposal is facing criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Islandfor what it says could be a violation of First Amendment rights.

More: Motor vehicle or conventional bicycle? Cyclists and RIDOT at odds over e-bike rules

In a letter urging the deletion of that section of the bill, the ACLU cited a 2011 case in Washington state that struck down a similar law. The organization contended that such a broadly worded ban implicates free speech rights when drivers honk their horns to convey messages unrelated to public safety including political messages.

In that case, the states Supreme Court said examples of free speech via horn might include: a driver of a carpool vehicle who toots a horn to let a coworker know it is time to go, a driver who responds to a sign that says Honk if you support our troops, wedding guests who celebrate nuptials by sounding their horns, and a motorist who honks in support of someone picketing on a street corner.

The ACLU, in its letter, also raised concerns over whether such a law in Rhode Island could be arbitrarily applied, as determining whether a honk is necessary creates an extremely vague standard.

More: License plate-reading devices draw criticism from ACLU

More: New surveillance cameras make inroads in RI, raising privacy concerns

Kislak called the free-speech concerns valid, and said she flagged them to the Rhode Island Bicycle Coalition, which helped to draft the bill three years ago. However, Kislak so far has kept the honking rule in the legislation.

I have been on the receiving end of dangerous honking while riding my bike in another state, and so I know that aggressive honking can cause incredibly hazardous conditions for bicycles, she said. So I was happy to keep that in so that we have a conversation, but I do want to flag that there are also First Amendment concerns, so an important conversation to be had there.

The bill has been held for further study.

Visit link:
RI bill would ban 'aggressive honking' by drivers. Would that violate free speech? - The Providence Journal

The right to speak and the right to print, without the right to know, are pretty empty.

These are the words of Harold Cross, author of The Peoples Right to Know, a book largely regarded as inspiration for the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) , which Congress passed in 1967.

The FOIA and its state-level counterparts guarantees us the right to request records from any government agency, allowing the public to oversee the activities of government. It not only enhances our exercise of the rights to free speech and freedom of the press (as well as the other three freedoms religion, assembly and petition) but also directly benefits society by potentially exposing government waste, abuse and corruption.

While many view the FOIA as a federal law for journalists to use in their role as watchdogs of government activity, access to records provides an ongoing benefit to all of us.

Reporters from The New York Times used FOIA to track the expenses and meetings of Scott Pruitt , the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who resigned in 2018 amid allegations of corruption. A blog associated with the Times also used FOIA to learn that the Department of Agriculture received 64 complaints from 2007 to 2009 about foreign objects such as glass, a rubber glove and an insect found in hot dogs sold to the public. (I can hear some of you saying, Actually, Id rather not know that.)

At the local level, the Associated Press used FOIA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to determine that 122 other levees built by the Army Corp of Engineers around the country contained deficiencies . That FOIA request brought the issue to the attention of the residents of those 122 communities, allowing them to take steps to protect themselves and their homes from flood risk and resulting in repairs where necessary.

But its not just reporters who use FOIA. Ordinary people even those who are skeptical of the role of the media in overseeing government use the law to great effect. In 2019, students at Back of the Yards High School in Chicago used public records to learn that the two white police officers at their mostly minority school each had substantial misconduct complaints against them, including allegations of use of force, false arrest and verbal abuse, often against people of color. The students then used this information to ask for the removal police officers from their public schools.

Other Gen Zers have used their digital skills to access and analyze public records, especially large datasets, through technology.

Jack Sweeney, a freshman at the University of Central Florida, has used publicly available flight information to track SpaceX founder Elon Musks private jet which he then reported via Twitter @ElonJet. As Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Sweeney launched @RUOligarchJets, which tracks the movement of Russian oligarchs.

On a larger scale, FOIA requesters should applaud the recent creation of Gumshoe by graduate students at NYUs Center for Data Science . Gumshoe is an artificial intelligence tool that sorts through large swaths of information. This is more necessary than ever given the explosion of information that is created by the government every year and the hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of text that one might receive via a public records request. The Gumshoe team has already received funding including a $200,000 grant from the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation to build out the product for widespread distribution.

You dont have to be a journalist or computer genius to use public records laws and certainly not to benefit from their use. Thats why we all should celebrate Sunshine Week and public records all year round.

Kevin Goldberg is a Freedom Forum First Amendment specialist. First Five is a monthly column on First Amendment issues produced by The Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by Al Neuharth. First Five is an effort to inform citizens on the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

Read more:
First Five: Free speech and press need freedom of information - The Dickinson Press