Category Archives: Free Speech

Consequences matter. If there was one clear message from footballs temporary boycott of social media earlier this month, in protest at the torrent of online hate experienced disproportionately by black players, that was it.

The former England striker Ian Wright has said that hed almost given up reporting the vile stuff he receives daily because nothing ever seemed to happen to the perpetrators. It makes you feel very dehumanised. You feel like theres nothing you can do, youre helpless, he said. So two cheers, at least, for the inclusion in this weeks Queens speech of a long-delayed online safety bill aimed at holding big tech more accountable. Who wouldnt agree with the culture secretary Oliver Dowdens desire to rid social media of what he called the bile and the threats?

For all the good social media brings, it has also created unrivalled opportunities for the resentful, the bitter and the frankly sociopathic to reach those they couldnt previously touch. Children have been groomed for sexual exploitation, terrorists radicalised, the gullible sucked into conspiracy theories, teenage girls coached to self-harm, and hate normalised on platforms that have faced too little by way of consequence. Unlike some of the straw men set up by this Queens speech for ministers to knock down noisily, this problem is real. But as with too many of this governments grand plans, its one thing to announce youre going to fix the internet, and another to actually do it.

The case for action is so overwhelming that even Silicon Valleys smarter players are actively lobbying for governments to step in and regulate them, like teenagers whose illicit party has been gatecrashed by some scary-looking characters and who just want an adult to step in and deal with the problem they unwittingly created. Facebooks vice-president for global affairs, Nick Clegg, has long argued that its job would be easier if some of the sensitive decisions we have to make were instead taken by people who are democratically accountable to the people at large not by a private company. Let someone else take the flak for deciding whether Donald Trump should be banned for inciting riots, or in what circumstances posting an exposed nipple is acceptable. Judging by this rather vague and in places contradictory bill, however, it wont be that easy.

The governments proposals require tech companies to curb the use of their platforms for illegal purposes, under threat of sanction from Ofcom. So far, so clear. But it also imposes a duty of care on the biggest companies to prevent activities that arent necessarily illegal, but are potentially harmful capable of causing physical or psychological impact while simultaneously safeguarding the right to free expression, protecting political campaigners right to argue their case online and avoiding taking sides in political arguments.

All of which sounds eminently sensible, until you try applying it all in practice. Dowden ducked the question when asked by ITVs Robert Peston whether calling gay men tank-topped bumboys, as Boris Johnson once did in a newspaper column, should be outlawed online. But thats almost the easy bit.

To say that biological sex is real, and immutable, would be seen in some circles as transphobic hate speech, and in others as a perfectly reasonable statement of fact. Who decides whats harmful to whom when teenagers on TikTok are shocked and upset by very different things to their parents on Mumsnet? What about comments that arent discriminatory but are obnoxious, stupid or exhausting enough to cause cumulative psychological impacts if youre swamped with them? Where does an individuals responsibility to walk away end and the platforms responsibility to stop people feeling they have to leave begin? And how can a site not take sides in political arguments where one party chooses a liar or a bigot for a leader, and the other doesnt?

Answering these questions will shape popular culture profoundly, making the still vacant position of the Ofcom chair contenders for which reportedly include the former Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre very powerful indeed. But they will also require from tech executives the judgment of Solomon, or at the very least, editorial skills more usually demanded of the BBC and newspaper executives who wont, incidentally, be covered by this bill. Online journalism is exempt in the interests of press freedom, but, interestingly, so is below-the-line comment by readers, meaning that what a person can write underneath a tabloid article about Meghan Markle may diverge sharply from what can be said about her on Twitter or indeed in a student union debate, where a separate free speech bill will guarantee the right of controversialists to sue for compensation if theyre no-platformed by universities.

Whats the guiding principle here, the one rule that makes the boundaries of free speech clear to everyone? There isnt one, partly because Dowden is right that in a democracy there are some things politicians shouldnt dictate, and partly because setting hard-and-fast rules on this stuff is like nailing jelly to a moving wall. Yet the success of this bill depends in some ways on pretending that there is; that deep down we know whats right, and that social media companies therefore have the power to fix things, if only theyre threatened with the right stick. Well, maybe. But if not, then the story of regulating big tech may continue to be one of a shrinking circle of people passing the hot potato endlessly, each one desperately hoping the music doesnt stop with them.

See more here:
The online safety bill will show just how blurred the boundaries of free speech are - The Guardian

Todd J. Williams| Correspondent

The power of nature prevails in climb to recovery

Laura Waits and Per Hagen developed an outdoor adventure program, Sync Recovery Community, to guide those in recovery to drug-free activities.

Marion Callahan, Bucks County Courier Times

We live in an era of individual expression. You dont have to look very far in our culture to see this. A few minutes spent on social media or watching the late-night talk shows is all it takes to see that contemporary culture not only embraces but encourages the idea that if you feel it, say it, unfiltered never mind the accuracy or what the implications are of what you say.

If you think it,if you feel it, if it is your reaction to a circumstance, event, or other person just say whatever you want, in whatever way you want, with whatever tone you want. That is your right. To be fair, this in fact is a freedom or a right in this land.

After all, the Constitution guarantees the right of expression. The freedom of expression is a core principle of our constitutional republic. We do not censor. We do not stifle. It is an American ideal.

What I am referring to, though, is something different. I am referring to the dangers of unfiltered, unrestrained and unmeasured personal expression:saying things without thought, without considering the truthfulness, the accuracy and the implications of our words.

This is not a wise way to live. Of course,we can say and do whatever we want, but there is a very poignant verse in the Bible where the apostle Paul says,All things are lawful,but not all things are helpful (1 Cor. 10:13). Another way of expressing this is to use a more contemporary axiom, Just because we can do something, doesnt mean we should.

Knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it; knowing when we should do something because it is the best course of action and not just simply because we canthese require judgment. This is the way of wisdom.

It is not a way of repression but a way of restraint, of self control, and of choosing what is best.

The Old Testament book of Proverbs has numerous references to the importance and impact of our words. In Proverbs 17:27, we see that restraint regarding our words says something about our character: Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.

The real question is whether we as a society value the personal character qualities of being knowledgeable and having understanding. Another implication of this passage is that when people do not restrain themselves, they show themselves to be the opposite of having knowledge and understanding.

It is possible to assess the character of people by their lack of verbal restraint. We have all experienced this on a relational level. But it has larger societal and cultural implications that begin with us as individuals on a relational level.

We must also consider the damage done by words expressed without filter or consideration. In Proverbs 12:18 we read, There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Words have the power to inflict pain and wound. They also have the power to bring healing.

This proverb underscores again the character associated with painful words versus healing words. Do we aspire to be rash or wise? If our words are as sword thrusts, inflicting pain on others, we show ourselves to be rash. If our words rather bring healing, we show ourselves to be wise.

The unrestrained and unfiltered expression that we see running rampant in our worldwhether haters on social media or character assassins on late-night talk showssays something about us as a people and our level of tolerance of rashness at best or ourenamormentwith it at worst.

Words matter. Our speech has an impact on those around us, on culture and society and on future generations.It is also true that we are responsible for what we say, when we say it and how we say it. We can choose a different path. We can reject the unfiltered norm of our day and choose the way of self-control, restraint and wisdom.

I often consider what a different world we would be living in if we took full responsibility for our words and considered the power of truthfulness when we disagree and graciousness in the way we talk to our coworkers, our children, our friends and strangers.

Again, Proverbs speaks to this. In Proverbs 16:24 we read, Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. We could use a little of this these days. Our disagreements and divisions are real. Whether personal, political, social, or cultural, we are not of one mind.

This is a reality of life and part of being human. Another part of being human is our ability and inclination to express ourselves. Yet another part of being human is the moral capacity to consider the implications of our expressions, to hold our tongues when appropriate, to consider others, to weigh facts and speak truth and to season our speech with grace and wisdom.

These things are not impossible. We have the capacity. Do we have the desire?

Dr. Todd J. Williams is president of Cairn University in Langhorne Manor. From a Faith Perspective is a weekly column written by members of the local faith communities.

Read the original here:
From a Faith Perspective: We have a right to free speech. But do we use it wisely? - Bucks County Courier Times

MPs on the House of Commons heritage committee agreedtoday to pause a detailed review of the federal government's broadcasting bill while the Department of Justice looks into whether recent amendments violate the free speech rights of social media users.

Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP MPsall voted in favour of asking for a revised "charter statement" on Bill C-10. Such statements are issued by the justice minister to examine the potential impact new legislation may have on Canadians' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion also requests that both Justice Minister David Lametti and Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, along with a panel of experts, appear beforethe committee to discuss the implications of recent amendments to the bill and take questions from committee members.

Today's vote breaks a weeks-long deadlock at the committee and is a loss for the Liberals, who wanted the clause-by-clause review of the legislation to continue while the updated charter statement wasbeing prepared bythe Department of Justice.

Instead, that review has been shelved while the committee waits to see the charter statement and to hear fromthe ministers and experts.

Bill C-10 was introduced by Guilbeaultto bring digital streaming services under the purview of the Broadcasting Act. It would allowthe Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)the country's broadcasting regulatorto require them to contribute to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian content, similar to howthe CRTCregulates radio and TV content now.

The bill came under fireafter the committee removed a clause that would have excluded user-generated content posted to social media sites from CRTC regulation.

The government said the exclusion would have allowed YouTube to escape the same reporting requirements and obligations to contribute to Canadian culture that would have applied to streaming sites like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon.

But legal experts argued the changes gave the CRTC the power to regulate the posts that millions of Canadians upload every day to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTubesomething they saw as a violation of thecharter right to freedom ofexpression.

The Liberals proposed an amendment to the bill last week to clarify the role of the CRTC. The amendment proposed allowing the CRTCto requirethe sitesto make Canadian content more visible to Canadian users.

The amendment failed to mollify critics.

"Guilbeault and the government promised to remove regulation of user generated content by the CRTC. Instead ... it effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place," Michael Geist,a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in internet law, wrote recentlyin his blog.

WhileGuilbeault has insisted that CRTC regulation will apply onlyto professional content posted to platforms that act as broadcasters, he muddied the waters himself over the weekend.

In an interview on CTV's Question Period,Guilbeault appeared to suggest that C-10 would allow the CRTC to impose discoverability regulations on individuals who have large online followings,or who generate significant revenue through their online content. Guilbeault's office laterbacktracked, saying individuals who usesocial media will never be consideredbroadcasters.

At a press conference today, Liberal MP Julie Dabrusinrepeated the Liberal assertion that any CRTC-imposedobligations would only apply to the platforms. Dabrusin said such obligations include:

Dabrusin accused the Conservatives of holding up the committee's work for the past two weeks.

Conservative MPs have been especially vocal in their opposition to C-10 in its current form, saying that it would lead to governmentcensorship of the internet.

During question period in the House of Commons today, MPRachael Harder the Conservatives'digitalgovernment critic accused the Liberals of launching an attack on YouTubers to censor what people post to social media.

Guilbeault responded that the bill is not about what Canadians can or can't post online. He said the bill will make sure big streaming companies "pay their fair share" and make Canadian content more discoverable on their platforms.

See the original post:
MPs agree to legal review of broadcasting bill over free speech concerns - CBC.ca

Despite all the preening about "free speech" on the right, the truth is complaints about"cancel culture" havealways been code for "conservatives can say whatever terrible things they want, and liberals can shut up about it." Andwhile play-acting as the victims of censorship because liberals mock or criticize them, Republicans have been busy actually silencing free speech: from demanding that athletes be fired for kneeling during the national anthem to, memorably, Donald Trump ordering thetear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park. While conservatives whine about oppression because people call them "racist" on Twitter, they are actually using complaints about "wokeness" as an excuse for the literal government censorship of discourse that acknowledges the reality of racism, as Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times chronicled.

That's conservatism, of course: Always projecting their own sins onto their liberal opponents.

But the Republican enthusiasm for censorship has become even more pronouncedin the past few weeks, as they've escalated the purge of any party members who refuse to sign onto the Big Lie that Joe Biden "stole" the election and that the Capitol insurrection was no big deal.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. followingin the footsteps of that other, more infamous McCarthy escalated the blacklisting ofRep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., foradmitting that the insurrection was a real thing that really happened because Donald Trump was really trying to steal an election that Joe Biden really won. McCarthysent a letter to theRepublican caucus declaring his intention to lead the effort to remove Cheney from her leadership position for said thought crimes and included a real howler of a closing paragraph.

"We are a big tent party," McCarthy insisted, as they purge anyone who refuses to sign off the Big Lie."And unlike the left, we embrace free thought and debate."

Of course, not if you think thoughts about admitting realityor debate those who insist on fealty to a lie.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

McCarthy got ripped on Twitter, as he rightly deserved.But really, his Orwellian use of "free thought" is just more of the same from Republicans, who have continually used claims of support for "free speech" and opposition to "cancel culture" as cover for their efforts to stifle speech, protest, and debate.

Witness, for instance, the right-wing freakout du jour, over a speech last week from Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., in which she used the term "birthing people."Bush's speech was about the lack of decent maternal care in the U.S., and drew on her own personal experiences of watching a son nearly die and almost losing another pregnancy because doctors didn't take her health concerns seriously. But conservatives decided to harp on her word choice, accusing Bush of trying to replace the term "mother" with "birthing people."

But Bush did no such thing, as anyone who actually listened to her speech heard.She said, "I sit before you today as a single mom, as a nurse, as an activist, and as a Congresswoman, and I am committed to doing the absolute most to protect Black mothers. To protect Black babies. To protect Black birthing people. And to save lives."

Emphasis mine, because Bush's critics clearly don't read so good. Or really, they do, but they are lying liars who are arguing in bad faith, pretending to be victims of "cancel culture" while actually launching a massive pressure campaign designed to stifle any discussion or acknowledgment of the fact that "mother" and "person who gave birth" are not neatly overlapping categories, due to practices like adoption or the existence of transidentities.

No doubt, "birthing persons" is a clunky phrase that is unlikely to take off in the common parlance. But the issue here isn't awkward phrasing, it's about the right trying to cancel thoughts or discussions that make them uncomfortable and doing so, in their Orwellian way, while pretending to actually be for "free speech."

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But this is par for the course with right wing hysterics over "cancel culture."Scratch the surfaceand they are typically aimed not at expanding the discourse, but contracting itso that the only allowable ideas are those that fit comfortably into conservative orthodoxy.

The meltdown over the estate of Dr. Seuss delisting a few obscure titles for racist imagery? That's really more about conservatives being unwilling to deal honestly with the history of racism than it is about "free speech."The whining about Mr. Potato Head rebranding to a more gender-neutral Potato Head? That's mostly about conservatives wanting to crush any childish experimentation with gender presentation, which is more about silencing rather than empowering free expression.

Even some Republicans are starting to be a little uncomfortable with the contradictionbetween Republicanclaims of being for "free thought" and their actual behavior, which is about cracking down on anyone who disagrees or even just acknowledges inconvenient truths. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, got angry over Cheney's defenestration and told reporters, "I feel it's okay to go ahead and express what you feel is right to express and, you know, cancel culture is cancel culture," and complained about "those that are trying to silence others in the party."

But this is nothing new, as demonstrated by the widespread support for Donald Trump and his lengthy efforts to stifle anti-racism protesters, whether they're playing professional sports or just trying to avoid tear gas canisters in front of the White House. Anger over "cancel culture" was never a robust defense of free speech. As with the Republican war on democracy itself, it's an assertion that the shrinking white conservative minority should have political and social hegemony, untouched by either progressive criticism or pushbackat the ballotbox.

The Cheney purge illustrates this reality perfectly.She's being blacklisted both for saying things that make Republicans uncomfortable and for asserting that the person who won the election should be president. Republicans were never for "free speech," and recent events just make that almost comically apparent.

Read the original here:
Canceling the anti-insurrectionists in the GOP proves Republicans never cared about "free speech" - Salon

The Westminster government is to bring forward legislation that will enable people to access funding for English higher and further education throughout their lives, as well as to create new laws on campus free speech.

The Queens Speech, setting out the Conservative governments legislative agenda for the coming parliamentary session, outlined plans for a Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and a Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

The skills bill will enable people to access flexible funding for higher or further education, bringing universities and further education colleges closer together, and removing the bias against technical education, delivering the prime ministers lifetime skills guarantee, according tobriefing notesfor the speech published by the government.

The bill will strengthen the powers of the Office for Students to take action to address low quality higher education provision, the briefing says. This will ensure the OfS can regulate in line with minimum expectations of quality, it adds.

A lifelong loan entitlement will give individuals access to the equivalent of up to four years worth of student loans for level 4-6 qualifications that they can use flexibly across their lifetime, at colleges as well as universities, it also says.

Universities will look for clarity on whether the new loans will be outside current rules thatmean students cannot access funding for a course that is an equivalent or lower qualification (ELQ) to one they already have.

There will also be a bill to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities in England, the Queens Speech confirmed.

As expected, the long-planned bill will impose new freedom of speech and academic duties on higher education providers and students unions and give the OfS the power to impose fines for breaches; extend free speech laws to students unions; create a new role of director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students; and enable individuals to seek compensation through the courts if they suffer loss as a result of breach of the freedom of speech duties.

Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, said vice-chancellors had long called for a more flexible approach to student finance to better support part-time, flexible learning and mature students.

This bill is a step in the right direction and welcome recognition that adults should have access to education throughout their lives, he said. As the nation looks to recover and rebuild from the impact of Covid-19, we need fresh thinking, policy change and government support to help people of all ages and backgrounds to reskill and retrain.

Many universities are ready to scale up their alternatives to the traditional three-year degree, giving more people the chance to study accredited modules flexibly, including bite-size courses that can be accumulated. This will allow more people to develop skills at university which will benefit the UKs recovery and boost local economies.

Jo Grady, the University and College Union general secretary, said that while there were serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom from campusthey come from the government and university managers, not staff and students.

Widespread precarious employmentstrips academics of the ability to speak and research freely, and curtails chances for career development. Free speech and academic freedom are threatened more widely on campusby government interference in the form of the Prevent duty, and attempts to impose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition and examples of antisemitism on universities, Dr Grady said.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

Read the original:
Queen's Speech: bills on skills and campus free speech planned - Times Higher Education (THE)

A conversion therapy ban will soon be brought forward to parliament, it was confirmed in Tuesdays (11 May) Queens Speech.

During her speech at the State Opening of Parliament, Queen Elizabeth II promised: Measures will be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities and ban conversion therapy.

The Queen added that her government will strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution protect freedom of speech and restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.

Following the Queens speech, Liz Truss, minister for women and equalities, confirmed in a statement that legislation would be brought forward following a public consultation.

She said: As a global leader on LGBT+ rights, this government has always been committed to stamping out the practice of conversion therapy.

We want to make sure that people in this country are protected, and these proposals mean nobody will be subjected to coercive and abhorrent conversion therapy.

Alongside this legislation, we will make new funding available to ensure that victims have better access to the support they need.

The Government Equalities Office said that the funding for victims would be in place by this summer, but again gave no timeline for legislation banning conversion therapy, insisting it would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows, and following a consultation.

The consultation is set to seek to opinions of the public and key stakeholder to ensure that the ban can address the practice while protecting the medical profession; defending freedom of speech; and upholding religious freedom.

It comes almost three years after the Conservative partys 2018 pledge to eradicate conversion therapy in the UK as part of their LGBT+ Action Plan.

The Queens speech gave no details as to when a ban would be brought forward or any information on what it would cover, and campaigners fear that exemptions for religious institutions and free speech protections could allow the practice to continue legally.

Story continues

Gay evangelical Christian Jayne Ozanne, director of the Ozanne Foundation, responded to the Queens speech: I am relieved to hear that measures will be brought forward to ban conversion therapy.

However, the government risks creating a highly dangerous loophole if it chooses to focus purely on coercive practices.

Most LGBT+ people in religious settings feel it is their duty to submit to those in authority and will therefore willingly follow their leaders advice, even if it causes them great harm.

The government needs to implement what the UN and senior religious leaders have called for a full ban on all conversion practices.

We do not need yet more delay, they have consulted long enough. We now need action before more lives are lost!

In March this year, Ozanne was one of three members of the governments own LGBT+ Advisory Panel quit their positions, accusing the Conservative party of creating a hostile environment for LGBT+ people.

See more here:
Government to ban conversion therapy after consultation on free speech and religious freedom - Yahoo Eurosport UK

As politics grows even more polarized and our political dialogue continues to weaken, opportunities for bipartisan cooperation have become few and far between. However, recent actions by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Supreme Court have presented an issue that cries out for bipartisan unitythe protection of free speech.

In March, the House passed H.R.1, a bill that, in part, regulates who can or cannot exercise their free speech rights leading up to an election. (In the Senate, this bill is known as S.1.) For instance, organizations participating in mundane issue-based advocacy could be subject to disclosure requirements if they even make a reference to a candidate or elected official in their advertisements.

The overly broad disclosure requirements contained in this bill would only serve to have a chilling effect on the ability of individuals and organizations to participate in the free exchange of ideas.

DAVID RYDEN: AMEND EQUALITY ACT BIDEN CAN PROTECT BOTH FAITH AND LGBTQ COMMUNITIES. HERE'S HOW

If you doubt this is the Democrats intended purpose, look no further than California, where they are also pursuing the disclosure of the names and addresses of individuals who donated to groups that engaged in issue advocacy. This practice has been subject to litigation and will be argued in front of the Supreme Court.

The ability for Americans to participate in democracy and maintain their privacy is a bedrock of the right to free speech. In fact, many groups across the ideological spectrum are speaking out against the government requiring public disclosure of donors to nonprofit groups.

As two senior legislative counsels for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in The Washington Post, "We know from history that people engaged in politically charged issues become political targets and are often subject to threats of harassment or even violence."

The ACLU is hardly a right-wing group. Neither are the Council on American Islamic Relations, the NAACP, the Human Rights Campaign, PEN America, or the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, all of which have advocated for the Supreme Court to not allow the government, whether federal or state, to force the disclosure of individuals who donate to nonprofit charitable organizations.

S.1 would actively discourageAmericans from exercising their right to free speech on issues important to them.

Unfortunately, Democrats have focused on organizations they dont see eye to eye with politically to vilify political speech. The government, now controlled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is seeking to gain additional power to silence the views of those who challenge their policies and they are doing it under the guise of transparency.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The implications of this could not be more sinister, especially when considering the increasing trend of Big Tech becoming a tool for politicians to silence speech.People would certainly hesitate to donate money and engage in protected political speech in support of their views if the right to remain anonymous is taken away.

While S.1 is being pitched as a way to get more Americans involved in the political process, it would actively discourage those same Americans from exercising their right to free speech on issues important to them.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As this debate moves over to the Senate, Congress will certainly address other aspects of S.1 related to voter participation. But free speech is far too important a principle in our country to be overlooked.

Democrats must stop turning the issue of political speech into a cynical game and respect the ideologically diverse chorus of voices begging them to realize what a bad idea this really is.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY SEN. JERRY MORAN

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY ADAM BRANDON

Adam Brandon is the president of FreedomWorks.

Go here to see the original:
Sen. Moran & Brandon: Dems' S1 election bill poses grave threat to free speech - Fox News

House File 744 outlines policy and training public higher education institutions must adopt regarding First Amendment rights.

The Iowa Senate passed an amended version of House File 744, known as the education free speech bill, in a unanimous vote on Wednesday.

The bill says that the state Board of Regents and directors of community colleges in Iowa must adopt a policy that includes specific statements regarding freedom of expression and the role of higher education in relation to free speech. The regents also must develop programs to inform people responsible for instruction and discipline about these policies. The bill says faculty members knowingly or intentionally in violation of the policy will face disciplinary measures.

HF 744 requires public higher education institutions to provide annual training on the First Amendment to faculty, staff, and students.

The bill was first introduced by the House Judiciary committee on March 4 and was amended and passed out of the House 97-1 on March 16. It was first passed out of the Senate 46-0 on April 6, and then the House adopted two amendments and passed a final version, 92-1, on April 27.

The most recent amendments from the House changed the language in the bill so student government organizations can be punished if they have been found to have intentionally violated First Amendment rights after exhausting only all administrative appeals, rather than both administrative and judicial appeals. It also struck the language that codifies the nonpartisan free speech Commission created at the Board of Regents, and adds the words knowingly and intentionally to describe the actions of a person who could have their license revoked for being in violation of sections of the bill.

The Senate again passed the amended bill unanimously, 48-0, on May 5, this time with no additional amendments. The bill will now head to Gov. Kim Reynolds desk for a signature.

Original post:
Education free speech bill passes Iowa Senate unanimously, heads to Gov. Kim Reynolds - UI The Daily Iowan

opinion

Soour state senator, Dale Zorn, feels it's necessary to write prospective legislation to address some voter concerns about voter fraud and election integrity. If such legislation is needed, allow me to contribute my ideas on the subject.

Mr. Zorn should remember and acknowledge that this high degree of mistrust ONLY exists on account of "The Big Lie." The accusations of voter fraud were unfounded.The Trump campaign lost 63 election lawsuits with nearly all of the cases being dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Still, Trump continued spreading his lies about voter fraud and irregularities.Trump knew his lies were exactly that:Lies! Therefore, let me list my ideas for some new laws to help ensure election integrity.

First off, Georgia made it illegal to bring food or water to voters waiting in line as they fear it may influence voting selections. I agree that it should be illegal, but not for the reasons Georgia Republicans give.Nobody should have to stand in line four to six hours to cast a vote. Any district that is so heavily populated must have sufficient polling locations to relieve the burden of fulfilling their democratic responsibility.

Secondly, free speech should not allow a candidate to repeatedly lie and misinform the general public to the point of insurrection. Fox News eagerly repeated the Trumpian lies. But since no self-respecting lawyer sought to be disbarred for bringing a meritless lawsuit into the courtroom, their story changed when they actually appeared in front of a judge. One judge repeatedly asked Rudy Giuliani if his lawsuit was about election fraud and he was forced to answer "no." So the practice of bringing multiple meritless lawsuits by a disgruntled candidate should be made illegal with severe consequences for the perpetrators of the frivolous lawsuits.

Lastly, elected legislators who cry election fraud but bring no proof of such actions, instead bring only incendiary partisan rhetoric, which stokes mistrust in our elections, should be censured by their peers or removed from office, stripped of retirement or job benefits and be prohibited from holding public office again.

The mistrust concerning this election only exists because of all of the Trump enablers, those legislators who repeated the lies of the ex-president because they lacked the personal courage to stand up for what is right. You have no right to restrict our voting privileges simply based upon the lies that you helped to tell!

Charles K. Cline

Monroe

Link:
Free speech shouldn't include lying to the public - Monroe Evening News

A new episode of Fox Nation's "No Interruption" offers an extended look into Tomi Lahren's appearance at TPUSAs "Back the Blue" event at Clemson University. "Back the Blue," Lahren provides a deep dive into the controversy surrounding the event, her full speech, as well as a Q and A session with Graham Allen and Brandon Turner.

As seen in the special, Lahren delivered a scathing rebuke to the "snowflakes" attempting to shut down the event, reaffirming that she would not be deterred from speaking at the South Carolina-based University.

"They condemned it and me. They tried to cancel it. When that didnt work they attempted to sabotage the event with fake ticket signups. When that didnt work they tried to run up the security cost," Lahren said. "Well guess what, snowflakes? I will be speaking at Clemson tonight come hell, high water or anti-free speech college liberals."

One female member of Turning Point attending the event praised Clemson for being steadfast in their staunch support of free speech while simultaneously attempting to remain "bipartisan" amidst the backlash.

TOMI LAHREN TO SPEAK AT CLEMSON DESPITE STUDENTS' ATTEMPTS TO 'SABOTAGE' EVENT: 'IT DIDN'T WORK, SNOWFLAKES'

"Its so rare that you find a college campus where the administration so boldly supports free speech, and that is what the administration has done through the whole thing," she said.

However, not everyone was as thrilled about the Universitys decisions.

Video from the event showed large groups of protesters, holding signs that read, "protect your students," "enough forgiveness and tolerance," and "blue lives murder."

At one point the protesters could be heard chanting, "get your knees off our necks."

One Black female protester told Fox Nation that she was "appalled" and "shocked" by the administrations decision to allow the event.

"Its an event that goes against the email sent by James Clements when he said that he supported our students of color, that he respected them, and that in no way shape or form would he allow racism here on campus," claimed another female protester.

She also said that the event itself was "racism," but asserted that the events message was the cause of their protest, not Lahren.

Two other Turning Point members at the event recalled an incident where protesters yelled at Black attendees, calling them "traitors."

"For a group of people that dont like generalizing other people, they do a whole lot of generalizing about us," one of the students said in rebuttal.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NATION

Despite the onslaught of backlash, the event did occur as Lahren promised.

Upon her entrance to the stage, Lahren thanked the audience, riffed on her disdain for socially distanced events, and addressed her critics:

"I know there were a lot of people that really, really did not want us here, so I appreciate you guys being hereeven the ones that hate me that are in the audience," Lahren said.

She added that perhaps some of her speech would resonate with her opposition, but quipped that she wouldn't be offended if it didnt.

"They tried to cancel this, and they tried to cancel me, and they tried to cancel you, and they dont like free speech," she continued.

Lahren went on to discuss how the U.S' youngest generation "asks for fewer rights," the rioting that occurred in the summer of 2020, and, of course, "backing the blue."

Join Fox Nation today to watch the full episode, as well as more episodes, of "No Interruption with Tomi Lahren."

Fox Nationprograms are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers.Go to Fox Nationto start a free trial and watch the extensive library from your favorite Fox News personalities.

View post:
Tomi Lahren on the appearance that drew backlash, protests from 'anti-free speech liberals' in 'Back the Blue' - Fox News