Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Authors note: It is not my intention nor implication to accuse anyone of censorship, I just want to provide some snarky commentary about the First Amendment.

First and foremost, Im not a lawyer and Im not a journalist Im a photographer.

With that out of the way, Im sure most of the people reading this are aware that in the last week, The Battalion managed to unite TexAgs, Texas A&M Barstool, Old Row, TAMU Affirmations, TAMU Barbz, Leon ONeal Jr. and almost the entirety of Aggie Twitter. In case you missed that, I recommend you read any one of the numerous news stories published about the situation, though I am partial to our own. But, to give a brief summary, A&M administration demanded The Battalion stop printing, effective immediately, and was asked to make a decision to fall under university purview by the next semester or continue as a student organization without certain resources. Personally, Im not a huge fan of the ultimatum, but thats not what this opinion piece is about.

This piece is about the First Amendment, and my opinion is that Aggies online have been doing a really good job in demonstrating why the University of Texas is still home to the states premier law school. Ive seen many people on Twitter, Instagram and Reddit post about the First Amendment in the context of this situation with various levels of accuracy. Im no 1L, but I did pass Intro to Business Law, Constitutional Rights and Liberties and Communications Law. Im not claiming I have even taken the LSAT, and Im definitely not claiming I would pass the Bar Exam but Im pretty confident that I know more about the First Amendment than you do, genius.

Im drawing mostly from my communications law class, taught by David Donaldson, Class of 1973, who graduated from the only acceptable school an Aggie can go to in Austin: UT Law. He was a damn good professor who taught at UT and A&M, and Professor Donaldson, if youre reading this, please know I really enjoyed your class. If youre wondering why I feel this is worthy of note, just search David Donaldson Daily Mail meme.

He began his first lecture of the semester by reading the First Amendment out loud to us. That seems as good a place to start as any. Now obviously, I cant read it aloud to you, dear Batt reader, but please read it in your head the way you think someone who is a retired First Amendment lawyer and cowboy action shooting champion would:

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.

The relevant part there is, or of the press. So, what does that actually mean, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? The nine people who live in Washington, get paid to put on some drippy robes drippy means cool and listen to people who get paid even more money to argue about what it means, and over the last 230 years, they meet on Fridays to argue about things in a secret room and then they either agree or dont. Eventually, one of them writes down their opinion and at least four other people agree with them and write more opinions and it becomes the law.

But what do they argue about? The American legal system is a combination of precedent, history and tradition. American legal history, regarding the First Amendment, goes back far beyond 1789. We have to first understand why the First Amendment was written before we can even understand how it has been applied today.

Sir William Berkley, royal governor of Virginia in 1671, said this:

I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience, and heresy and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them and libels against the government. God keep us from both!

I think, regardless of your political beliefs, we can all probably agree what he said doesnt sound very American. Also, its not a typo, thats how they used to talk. His Majesty the King, much like some people today, could not stand criticism, so the British made it a crime called seditious libel. Anyone who made statements critical of the government could be thrown in jail.

In 1735, exactly that happened. A guy named John Peter Zenger published an article complaining about the local government, and for doing so, the local government threw him in jail. Zenger hired a lawyer named Andrew Hamilton no relation who argued while Zenger did indeed publish something that made the government look bad, it was true. So, why should it be a crime? The jury agreed and truth became an accepted defense to libel, and it remains so to this day. And everyone lived happily ever after, and nobody ever got mad at a journalist again.

The Famous Zenger Trial as it appeared in the book "Wall Street in History" in 1883.

Ha.

Tongue-in-cheek aside, it turns out, many people have gotten mad at journalists since then, and the Supreme Court has decided journalists are protected by the law, often. As long as they meet professional and ethical standards necessary to publish, journalists are supposed to be able to say whatever they want. Especially if its critical of the government.

Government censorship in professional journalism is supposed to be minimal. There are very few instances in which the government can censor the press. The only two real instances are in times of war or instances where the speech invites violence, see Neer v. Minnesota.

Since then, the Supreme Court has proven this barrier is extremely high, allowing The New York Times to publish classified documents during Richard Nixons administration. The administration attempted to exercise what is known as prior restraint and obtain a judicial order to prevent The New York Times from publishing what would go on to be known as the Pentagon Papers. In New York Times Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court found that just because The New York Times would likely embarrass the government, it doesnt put the nation in danger, ultimately ruling that The New York Times was protected under the First Amendment.

Criticizing authority is as much of an American pastime as baseball. Many Americans might think of that whole I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, quote when they think about free speech in America funnily enough the spuriously attributed Voltaire and actual author Evelyn Beatrice Hall are French and English, respectively. But, like I said earlier, Im not a journalist. Im a photographer who works for a student newspaper, a student newspaper which is 60 years older than the AP Stylebook; a student newspaper at a state university where the university is the government. What has the Supreme Court decided that I get to say?

Well, heres where it gets tricky and it could take a judge, potentially a panel of judges, to decide specifically what I, as a member of The Battalion, am allowed to do. This comes as a result of the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. One of the many questions raised in Hazelwood is if school newspapers are considered a public forum. In First Amendment law, a public forum is simply a protected place in which speech happens. No restriction based on content may occur in a public forum. Specifically, the question raised in the case is whether school newspapers are limited public forums. Limited public forum is a jargon phrase for a category of public forum established in Perry Education Association v. Perry Educators Association, so anytime I refer to a public forum, I mean a limited public forum.

The majority opinion of Hazelwood, written by 1937 Heisman runner-up Justice Byron White, states that curriculum-based school newspapers where students contribute to the paper as a part of a class are not forums for student expression. He goes so far as to saypublic schools need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Now, before you go and jump to conclusions, let the 1938 and 1940 NFL rushing yards leader finish.

University of Colorado Boulder Football great (and Supreme Court Justice) Byron 'Whizzer' White.

White adds, School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. By that ruling, as long as school newspapers are produced by students for no reason other than the fact that it is weirdly fun to stay up late making a newspaper, a state university cant censor the student papers content.

What if, as a few people online have argued, its an issue of quality, and the quality of The Battalion doesnt meet the level of an institution that is the prestigious farm school of Texas A&M, the world-class research university where we scream nonsense at midnight and worship a dog and where we embrace the fact that other schools call us a cult. What if we make a newspaper that is so bad, we sully that reputation?

Aside from the fact that by an actual quantitative metric, The Battalion is the sixth best college newspaper in the country, it wouldnt change anything. In a 2001 case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Kincaid v. Gibson, school officials refused to allow a student-run yearbook to deliver their finished print because they thought the yearbook was of low quality and inappropriate. The court found that college students, believe it or not, are adults, and should be treated as such unless you write something like Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Thats a whole different story though, so youll have to look that one up on your own.

The judge who wrote the Kincaid opinion, R. Guy Cole Jr., did what I will describe as the legal equivalent of that unofficial yell Head Yell Leader Memo Salinas had to write a letter about last fall. He says calling something low quality is an issue of content. Ill just let him take it from here:

There is little if any difference between hiding from public view the words and pictures students use to portray their college experience, and forcing students to publish a state-sponsored script. In either case, the government alters student expression by obliterating it. We will not sanction a reading of the First Amendment that permits government officials to censor expression in a limited public forum in order to coerce speech that pleases the government.

Public universities are a hotbed for First Amendment issues. Thats why groups like Foundation for Individual Rights for Education publish rankings for how different universities compare when it comes to support for the First Amendment. In my research, I found a paragraph from Justice Anthony Kennedys majority opinion in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, and while that situation in that case is not the situation in every other First Amendment case, I still feel it perfectly summarizes what the First Amendment means on college campuses:

The first danger to liberty lies in granting the state the power to examine publications to determine whether or not they are based on some ultimate idea and, if so, for the state to classify them. The second, and corollary, danger is to speech from the chilling of individual thought and expression. That danger is especially real in the university setting, where the state acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition.

In ancient Athens, and, as Europe entered into a new period of intellectual awakening, in places like Bologna, Oxford and Paris, universities began as voluntary and spontaneous assemblages or concourses for students to speak and to write and to learn. The quality and creative power of student intellectual life to this day remains a vital measure of a schools influence and attainment. For the university, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the nations intellectual life, its college and university campuses.

The Battalion is a student organization. Any student at A&M is welcome to apply to be a writer or photographer. But, as long as I have been a student here, faculty including the Texas A&M System chancellor have been welcomed as guest contributors.

The content of the newspaper should not be influenced by anyone other than current A&M students. It is the students who are supposed to write the stories, take the pictures and design the paper. It is ours to make, ours to screw up and ours to learn from. As the very first editors of The Battalion said in the inaugural edition, Boys this paper is yours. Make it something. Lend all your assistance possible. It is your duty, and should be your pleasure, to write something for every issue. The editors will endeavor to obtain most of the contributions from among you, and as it will prove beneficial in more than one way, you ought to be proud of the opportunity.

So, if youre a former student who has an issue with the content in The Batt, Im glad you feel like youre still in Aggieland, but youre not. You dont get a say in student life anymore, your time here is done. Its a college newspaper, for college students. Thats the purpose of our publication: a campus forum for current A&M students to enter their thoughts into the marketplace of ideas. So, current students, please contribute. Share your ideas and let the best idea win. Thats the whole point.

Robert OBrien is a political science redshirt senior and photo chief for The Battalion.

Go here to see the original:
Analysis: A photo chief's guide to the First Amendment - Texas A&M The Battalion

A Ukrainian lawmaker was left bloodied and disheveled on Friday after he was socked in the face and put in a headlock on live TV. The brawl erupted on the set of Savik Shusters Freedom of Speech talk show during a discussion about Russias aggression against Ukraine. With former Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and ex-president Petro Poroshenko nearby, journalist Yuriy Butusov walked right up to Nestor Shufrych, a lawmaker with the pro-Russian party Opposition PlatformFor Life, and slapped him in the face. Shufrych then stood up to fight back and the two plunged to the ground before Butusov managed to get Shufrych in a headlock, all while horrified guests yelled, Stop! and Let him go! The two were eventually pulled apart and reappeared to continue the discussion, both looking as if theyd been mauled by a feral cat. Shufrych, who had sparked the ire of his fellow guests by refusing to condemn Vladimir Putin, accused Butusov of scratching like a girl.

View post:
Pro-Russian Ukrainian Lawmaker Socked in the Face on Live TV - The Daily Beast

WASHINGTON If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

For two and a half centuries, the concept of free speech has bedeviled the United States.

The Framers suffered under a British colonial regime that punished speech critical of the British monarch. Yet, shortly after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, in which the First Amendment expressly commands that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized speaking maliciously about the government.

During the War Between the States, President Abraham Lincoln used the military to arrest and incarcerate without trial thousands of newspaper editors and journalists in the North who were critical of his decisions during the war.

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson used the precursor to the FBI to arrest those who read the Declaration of Independence aloud and sang German beer hall songs in front of draft registration offices. Wilson argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president as commander in chief. His Department of Justice successfully prosecuted folks who spoke out against American involvement in the war.

In the 1950s, the government prosecuted free speech deemed to be a clear and present danger to national security. None of it was. In a famous California case, the defendant was convicted of plotting to overthrow the government by her mere presence at a Communist Party convention, even though she opposed the resolution advocating the overthrow.

It was not until 1969 that government prosecution of speech came to a grinding halt when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to rebut it.

Equally as dangerous as the prosecutions themselves was their popularity. The defendants were often unsympathetic, and their speech for the most part was shunned and hated. That made the governments job easier.

But the First Amendment only insulates speech from the governments reach. It does not insulate it from private reach. Stated differently, if your speech offends the government, today it cannot sue or prosecute you. But, if you work for a private entity, your boss can punish you for speech that transgresses regulations in the workplace.

All of this is background to the present public drama involving the podcaster Joe Rogan. Rogan is the king of the podcasting hill. He has far more viewers and listeners than anyone else in the business. And so, he is a target of those who hate his ideas.

Rogan has licensed his podcasts to Spotify. Spotify does not produce Rogans show. It does not create his work, choose his guests or write his scripts. It merely makes Rogans show available to its paying customers.

Some of its customers and some of its other licensees have announced that they are offended by Rogans tone, his choice of words and what some of his guests have said. This began a few weeks ago when Rogan, who is a champion of personal liberty, interviewed two physicians who argued against the prevailing attitudes of the government, Big Pharma and medical elites about vaccines and face masks.

Suddenly, because of what his guests have said, Rogan became anathema, and lefties wanted him removed from Spotify. Put aside the financial consequences of such a removal the Spotify/Rogan deal is worth more than $100 million the activists who want Rogan silenced prefer that there be no public dialogue on health care because they hate and fear the speech that liberates.

Stated differently, some entertainers who have also licensed their work to Spotify, and their fans who subscribe to Spotify, are offended when they hear Rogans guests with whom they disagree, and they want him silenced.

Is there a right not to be offended? Of course not.

The freedom of speech, however, is a natural right. It comes from within each of us. Its essence is that individuals have a natural right to think as we wish and say what we think and listen to whomever we choose, and we dont need the approval of the government or a consensus of the loudest.

To those who want to silence Rogan, just imagine what this mess of a country would be like if the loudest voices could silence all others. Freedom thrives on the clash and free flow of ideas. Since 1969, we have succeeded in keeping the government out of the business of censoring and punishing speech; now we must keep the mob out.

Do the Rogan haters really want those bad old days to return? I ask this because the folks who hate and fear Rogans ideas really hate and fear his freedom and their next step will be to use the government to silence him. It is short steps from hatred to silencing to punishing speech.

But Rogan has the natural right to say what he wants and to speak with whomever he pleases. For him, that is tempered only by his voluntary licensing agreement with Spotify. And listeners have a right to listen to Rogan or not to listen. The Natural Law insulates the exercise of our rights from all incursions, not just the government. Neither you nor the government can legally take down my Vote for Ron Paul lawn sign.

Stated differently, you can shout Fire! in a crowded theater if the owner of the theater permits it. Joe Rogan can say on Spotify whatever Spotify permits, and Rogan can give platforms to those who challenge the establishment, and if you dont like his show, dont watch or listen.

The moral and constitutional remedy for hated speech is more speech. Hang in there, Joe.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Originally posted here:
Joe Rogan and the freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - Escanaba Daily Press

The conflict between Neil Young and Joe Rogan over the anti-vaccine propaganda Rogan spreads through his podcast triggered a heated debate over the boundaries of free speech on platforms like Spotify and whether one entertainer Young had the right to tell Spotify to drop another Rogan or hed leave himself. But this clash was about something more than free speech.

As a journalist who relies on freedom of speech, I would never advocate tossing Rogan off Spotify. But as a citizen, I sure appreciated Young calling him out over the deeper issue: How is it that we have morphed into a country where people claim endless rights while fewer and fewer believe they have any responsibilities?

That was really Youngs message for Rogan and Spotify: Sure, you have the right to spread anti-vaccine misinformation, but wheres your sense of responsibility to your fellow citizens, and especially to the nurses and doctors who have to deal with the fallout for your words?

This pervasive claim that I have my rights but I dont have responsibilities is unraveling our country today.

We are losing what could be called our societal immunity, argued Dov Seidman, founder of the How Institute for Society. Societal immunity is the capacity for people to come together, do hard things and look out for one another in the face of existential threats, like a pandemic, or serious challenges to the cornerstones of their political and economic systems, like the legitimacy of elections or peaceful transfer of power.

But societal immunity is a function of trust, added Seidman. (Disclosure: Seidman is a donor to my wifes museum, Planet Word.) When trust in institutions, leaders and each other is high, people in a crisis are more willing to sublimate their cherished rights and demonstrate their sense of shared responsibilities toward others, even others they disagree with on important issues and even if it means making sacrifices.

When our trust in each other erodes, though, as is happening in America today, fewer people think they have responsibilities to the other only rights that protect them from being told by the other what to do.

When Rogan exercised his right to spread misinformation about vaccines, and when Spotify stood behind its biggest star, they were doing nothing illegal.

They were just doing something shameful.

Because the Rogan podcast episode that set off the controversy, an interview with Dr. Robert Malone, who has gained fame with discredited claims, completely ignored the four most important statistical facts about Covid-19 today that highlight our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and, even more so, to the nurses and doctors risking their lives to take care of us in a pandemic.

The first three statistics are from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions latest surveys. First, unvaccinated adults 18 years and older are 16 times more likely to be hospitalized for Covid than fully vaccinated adults. Second: Adults 65 and older who are not vaccinated are around 50 times more likely to be hospitalized for Covid than those who have received a full vaccine course and a booster. Third: Unvaccinated people are 20 times more likely to die of Covid than people who are vaccinated and boosted.

The fourth statistic is from a survey from the staffing firm Cross Country Healthcare and Florida Atlantic Universitys College of Nursing, released in December. It found that the emotional toll and other work conditions brought on by the pandemic contributed to some two-thirds of nurses giving thought to leaving the profession.

A McKinsey study last month about the stress on nurses quoted Gretchen Berlin, a registered nurse and McKinsey partner, as saying: Many patients, especially at the start of this, had only the nurses with them for those final moments, and Im not sure that weve provided the decompression space for what that does to an individual who has to see that and support people through that over and over again. The level of stress that individuals are dealing with is going to have massive implications on everyones well-being.

My friend Dr. Steven Packer, president and C.E.O. of Montage Health and Community Hospital in Monterey, Calif., told me that many hospitals today are experiencing an unprecedented 20 percent annual turnover rate of nurses more than double the historical baseline. The more nurses leave, the more those left behind have had to work overtime.

We have hard-working frontline staff in critical care settings stretched thin caring for critically ill Covid patients with the overwhelming majority of those patients having a potentially avoidable illness had they only been vaccinated, explained Packer. It is disheartening and distressing.

Especially when so many dying unvaccinated patients tell their nurses, I wish I had gotten vaccinated, according to the American Hospital Association.

But as Wired magazine columnist Steve Levy wrote last week in a critique of Rogans three-hour Spotify interview with Malone, none of these statistics were mentioned during that podcast.

You can listen to the entire 186-minute lovefest between Rogan and Malone and have no idea that our hospitals are overloaded with Covid cases, wrote Levy, and that on the day their conversation transpired, 7,559 people worldwide died of Covid, 1,410 of which were in the United States. The vast majority of them were unvaccinated.

Instead, the entirety of the podcast makes it clear that Rogan and Malone are on the same team, Levy added. When Malone uncorks questionable allegations about disastrous vaccine effects and the global cabal of politicians and drugmakers pulling strings, Rogan responds with uh-huhs and wows. There is no mention of the numerous studies that unvaccinated people are many, many times more likely to be hospitalized or die.

That was Rogans right. That was Spotify C.E.O. Daniel Eks right. But who was looking out for the doctors and nurses on the pandemic front lines whose only ask is that the politicians and media influencers who are privileged enough to have public platforms especially one like Rogan with an average of 11 million listeners per episode use them to reinforce our responsibilities to one another, not just our rights.

Ill tell you who was defending them: Neil Young.

Listen to the last line of Youngs statement when he pulled out of Spotify: I am happy and proud to stand in solidarity with the frontline health care workers who risk their lives every day to help others.

Rogan has vowed to do better at counterbalancing controversial guests. He could start by offering his listeners a 186-minute episode with intensive care nurses and doctors about what this pandemic of the unvaccinated has done to them.

That would be a teaching moment, not only about Covid, but also about putting our responsibilities to one another and especially to those who care for us at least on a par with our right to be as dumb and selfish as we want to be.

Continued here:
Opinion | America 2022: Where Everyone Has Rights and No One Has Responsibilities - The New York Times

Media top headlines February 4

In media news today, an AP reporter spars with the State Departments Ned Price over allegations on Russia, a report claims that Jeff Zucker and Allison Gollust gave Andrew Cuomo COVID talking points to combat Trump, and an MSNBC broadcast gets interrupted by a Lets Go Brandon flag.

Musician Neil Young appears to have had a change of heart when it comes to the right of Americans to say how they feel about a particular political issue, even if others don't agree with them.

The liberal singer threw himself into the headlines last week following a decision to remove his content from Spotify in protest over Joe Rogan's podcast, complaining the latter was spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic to his millions of listeners, and he no longer wanted to share a platform with him.

However, Young's history of speaking out on political issues runs in contrast to his current position on Rogan, considering he participated in a 2006 "Freedom of Speech tour" that traveled the country protesting the then-involvement of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, often to disagreeable crowds.

Musician Neil Young speaks during a session at the International CES Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

JOE ROGAN HITS THE RIGHT NOTE AFTER NEIL YOUNG ATTACK, SPOTIFY PLAYS DEFENSE

"I was a nervous wreck by the end of that tour. I never want to do another tour like that in my life. I mean, that was so different from every other tour Ive done," Young told Rolling Stone in a 2008 interview. "Just getting up in front of a lot of people makes you nervous. But when you know that some of them are really going to be angry at you, and youre in a crowd, and its a volatile situation, people have been drinking, whatever you know, it makes you nervous."

"It was just that critical time in history where things were turning. Things were changing," he added. "Those who feel the way we do had some hope and those who dont feel the way we do were angry that the change happened. And those people have got a voice, and they have a reason for feeling the way they do. They strongly believe in the convictions. They believe in the military."

"They believe that were doing the right thing for the world, and they have every reason to be respected for their beliefs," he said.

Comedian Joe Rogan (Photo by: Vivian Zink/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

JOE ROGAN CRITICS NEIL YOUNG AND JONI MITCHELL HAVE THEIR HISTORY OF OFFENSES

Young's then-position on respecting the beliefs of others heavily contrasted his approach to Rogan as he demanded the streaming giant choose between the two.

"They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young," he reportedly posted in a letter to his management team. "Not both."

He also wrote that Spotify has a "responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, though the company presently has no misinformation policy."

A "Freedom of Speech Tour" poster from 2006 (Freedom of Speech Tour)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Other artists followed Young's lead by pulling their music from Spotify; however the company opted to keep Rogan's content and instead implemented a "content advisory" label to combat the spread of misinformation.

Rogan also issued an apology and promised to expand the viewpoints he brought onto his show.

Fox Business' Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Flashback: Neil Young participated in 'Freedom of Speech Tour' before advocating censorship of Joe Rogan - Fox News

If the great campaigners for free speech of the past, such as Baruch Spinoza or Mary Wollstonecraft or Frederick Douglass, were alive today, they would surely declare the 21st century an unprecedented golden age. So suggests Jacob Mchangama in his new history of free speech.

Its a claim that might raise a few eyebrows. This, after all, is an age in which, from China to Saudi Arabia, dictatorial rulers imprison and kill political opponents with impunity. An age in which governments in formally democratic nations such as India use the judicial system to try to silence critics. An age in which more than 1,400 journalists have been murdered in 30 years. An age in which governments across the globe desperately seek ways of curbing speech on social media they consider dangerous. And in which, in the west, there is a constant debate about cancel culture and the erosion of academic freedom.

Mchangama, a leading campaigner for free speech, is not trying to dismiss the reality of contemporary censorship. He is suggesting, rather, that in historical terms, we have never been more free to speak our minds. But this leads to a paradox. The very fact that, certainly in the west, we live in far more open societies has led many to be sanguine and dismissive of the threat that restrictions on speech can impose upon us. The very success of historical struggles can obscure the lessons of those struggles.

Historically, the demand for free speech was at the heart of the fight for social justice. From the challenge posed by freethinkers in 10th-century Islam to the abolitionist struggle in 19th-century America, from the suffragette movement to campaigns for liberation from colonial rule, there has long been a recognition that democracy, social justice and free speech go hand in hand and that censorship was a weapon wielded by the powerful to stymie social change.

Today, though, the issues seem more confusing. Much censorship, particularly in liberal democracies, is imposed in the name of protecting not the powerful but the powerless or the vulnerable: laws against hate speech, for instance, or restricting the scope of racists or bigots. And where once the left was clearly opposed to censorship, many now support restrictions in the name of the progressive good. As the left has vacated the ground of free speech, the right and the far right have become encamped upon it. This has further distorted the debate, the cause of free speech coming to be seen as the property of the right, making many on the left even more wary of the idea.

One of the ironies, though, is that many arguments used today to defend speech restrictions as protections for the powerless are often the same as those once used by the powerful to protect their interests from challenge. When the US abolitionist newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in 1837 by a pro-slavery mob in Illinois, a southern newspaper blamed him for his own death, as he had utterly disregarded the sentiments of a large majority of the people of that place. A century and a half later, we heard the same arguments in calls for the banning of The Satanic Verses or in claims that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were responsible for their own deaths, because they, too, had disregarded the sentiments of many Muslims.

Or take hate speech. In the 1950s, there was a major debate about the wording of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the seminal documents of human rights, adopted by the UN in 1966. The draft proposal sought to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hostility that constitutes an incitement to violence. The Soviet Union wanted to delete the reference to violence and make any form of hatred illegal. Such a move, warned Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the drafting committee, would be extremely dangerous as any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred and consequently prohibited. Half a century on, Roosevelts warning seems highly prescient.

Instances in which the expansion of speech has facilitated the spread of obnoxious or dangerous ideas are well-documented: from the newly invented printing press giving fuel to witch-hunts in early modern Europe; to newspapers playing a major role in whipping up the racist frenzy that led to lynchings in 19th-century America; to the medias role in the 20th century in fomenting hatred against Jews in Germany and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Yet we can also see from the historical record that while it is necessary to legally curtail incitement to violence, trying to combat hatred more broadly through censorship can be both ineffective and dangerous. One of the deepest-held beliefs about the dangers of free speech is the Weimar myth: the belief that unrestrained freedom of speech allowed the Nazis to spread their poisonous ideas in 1920s Germany and that restrictions on speech and the suppression of antisemitic propaganda would have stalled the rise of Hitler. In fact, the Weimar republic, while constitutionally supportive of free speech, possessed what we would now call hate speech laws and powers to shut down newspapers. Hundreds of Nazis were prosecuted under these laws. Between 1923 and 1933, the viciously antisemitic newspaper Der Strmer was either confiscated or tried in court on 36 occasions and its editor, Julius Streicher, twice jailed.

Many scholars argue that despite such laws Weimar courts were unduly lenient towards hate-mongers and that judges sympathised with Nazi aims. Other studies suggest that such leniency was the exception, not the rule. Wherever the truth lies in this debate, the primary failure in preventing the rise of Nazism was not legal but political. And this is true of hatred and bigotry today.

We often forget, too, that the victims of censorship are more often than not minorities and those fighting for social change. From Indian climate change activists being charged with promoting enmity between communities to British police charging feminists with hate crimes, censorship in the name of preventing hatred is widely used to target social activists.

We are the inheritors of centuries of struggle against restrictions on what we are able to say. If we forget the lessons of those struggles, we are in danger also of letting the gains of those struggles slip away.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columist

Go here to see the original:
Freedom of speech was too hard won to be cavalier now about censorship - The Guardian

The state Board of Regents will announce a new free speech training module via email from President Mike Richards on Wednesday. The training will be required for all members of the University of Iowa and other regent institutions and has to be completed before the end of the spring semester.

University of Iowa students, staff, and faculty will need to complete a free speech training by the end of the spring semester, President Barbara Wilson announced in an email on Tuesday.

Wilson wrote that all members of the university community will receive an email on Wednesday from Mike Richards, the state Board of Regents President, and Greta Rouse, chair of the regents Free Speech Committee, announcing the release of the new free speech training module. The training will be administered to all three public universities in Iowa, including Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.

All faculty, staff, and students are expected to complete the training prior to the end of the spring 2022 semester, the announcement reads. This training is required by Iowa law, is being provided on all three university campuses, and is important to our efforts in educating the campus community about First Amendment rights to free expression.

The training module will be online and will take 15 to 20 minutes to complete, the email reads.

The regents have implemented several freedom of speech-based policies in the last two years. In 2020, the regents created the free speech committee to study the issue and evaluate implementation of its 2019 free speech policy.

The regents also sent out a free speech survey to the universities in November, asking respondents to rank various statements based on their level of agreement.

Free speech issues in higher education were a central focus of Republican lawmakers during the 2021 legislative session. The House Government Oversight Committee held hearings on a student who said he was threatened with discipline for remarks made in a College of Dentistry email thread, and the Legislature passed multiple bills relating to free speech on campus.

A 2021 Knight Foundation study, released this January, found that students views on the security of free speech fell 12 percentage points between 2019 and 2021. The study also found that people of color on campuses feel less protected by the First Amendment.

Read more:
State Board of Regents to announce required free speech training - UI The Daily Iowan

In a low-resolution video interview from the Knox County Jail, Benjamin Carpenter said he plans to beat the charges at his federal trial this summer.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. A Knoxville man accused of trying to help ISIS terrorists said he plans to argue his actions are protected under the First Amendment when he represents himself in a federal court trial this summer, he told 10News.

In a series of interviews from the Knox County Jail, Benjamin Carpenter, 31, said he has no regrets and does not consider himself a terrorist though he does admit support for the Islamic State terrorist group, which has claimed responsibility for shootings, bombings and beheadings.

"I have no qualms of being described as pro-Islamic State," he said. "Because we share the same kind of methodology and outlook."

In March 2021, federal agents arrested Carpenter while he was working as a dog-walker. Prosecutors said he agreed to assist an undercover FBI agent to transcribe and translate a 25-minute ISIS video titled "Bleeding Campaigns."

The video "documents ISISs military operations against Egyptian troops, including ISIS fighters engaging in battle, executing a suicide bombing, and capturing and executing three individuals," court documents showed.

He faces charges that the translation was an attempt to provide material assistance to the terror group.

"It's simply not a crime what they're accusing me of," Carpenter said.

He said he helped run a pro-ISIS website and regularly translated material for it. "Its similar to what weve done previously," he said of the Bleeding Campaigns video. "The Islamic state would release something in Arabic and I would find it beneficial and I would translate it."

"[The website's] stated goal was to spread the Islamic creed, a methodology, and not watering that down for anybody," Carpenter said. "And if that happens to support individuals overseas so be it."

While Carpenter's views may be repugnant to many people's beliefs in East Tennessee, translating the video isn't a crime said defense attorney T. Scott Jones.

"Its a question of whether or not you materially assisted a terrorist organization and thats going to be a question for the judge and ultimately one for the jury to decide," said Jones, who is not connected with the case. "Unless he did some overt act other than just translating, I think the government is going to have a hard row to hoe, so to speak."

But a former federal prosecutor who reviewed the case said there's likely more to the charges that have not yet been unsealed or declassified. Speaking on background because he did not have inside knowledge of the case, he said the U.S. Attorney's Office rarely brings cases unless prosecutors are confident they can win.

"God Molded Me Into What I am Today"

Carpenter attended Bearden Middle School and West High School, before moving to Myrtle Beach his senior year, he said. He wasn't raised as a practicing Muslim. Later in life, he converted and began to subscribe to radical philosophies.

"I was kind of molded over a series of events and learning and gaining knowledge," he said. "Eventually God just molded me into what I am today."

By May 2015 he was on the FBI's radar and agents searched his home in Virginia, where Carpenter lived with a girlfriend and worked as a bread baker, court documents reveal.

At the time, he told FBI agents he believed the attacks on Sept. 11 were justified and, in 2016, said U.S. citizens should "expect to be victims of an attack," prosecutors said.

Since then, Carpenter said he's been prepared for federal authorities to arrest him.

"I kind of knew that the government would try to snag me at some point," he said. "They've been trying to get me since 2015."

He moved back to East Tennessee around 2-and-a -half years before his arrest, his mother, Denise Carpenter, told a federal judge. She assured the court in spring 2021 she would make sure Carpenter followed release rules and showed up for future appearances if allowed out of jail while he waited for a trial.

She testified he does not have a bank account and worked only 10 hours per week at a pet sitting service.

Prosecutors said Carpenter used his mother's University of Tennessee issued computer to write a blog post for the pro-ISIS website they allege he operated.

Federal magistrate judge Debra Poplin denied the requestto release him, citing a "gave danger to both the local and international communities."

"His faith in Islam and trust in God keeps him humble and give him strength to be willing and able to see and give his best in his current circumstance," Denise Carpenter wrote in a text to 10News. "Would he rather he have his freedom? Of course, as would his family, who misses him greatly."

Federal prosecutors said Carpenter grew "more and more prolific" after his 2015 run-ins with the FBI.

Prosecutors submitted more than two dozen exhibits to the court including videos, articles on beheadings and weapons of mass destruction, accusing Carpenter of "Jihad with a pen."

"I'm a regular person, not violent per se," Carpenter told 10News. He denied ever planning or participating in violence. "If I did, the government would surely know about it."

Still, he said he supported most violence perpetrated by the Islamic State.

"Some you would disagree with," he said. "Just like an American would disagree with some attacks, but they would maybe agree with the certain war that goes on."

In court transcripts, prosecutors said Carpenter talked with other ISIS sympathizers online and praised the Nashville Christmas Day bombing. When asked by 10News, he expressed support for the 9/11 attacks.

"They're definitely justified," Carpenter said.

Beaten back by international militaries, East Tennessee State University Terrorism Scholar Paul Kamolnick said ISIS relies on supporters like Carpenter to survive and spread their ideologies.

"What theyve been reduced to is basically a strategy of individualized terrorism," he said, saying they rely on the internet and online translations to spread propaganda. "That's the only way they reach audiences."

"God willing, I'll be found not guilty"

Prosecutors put it more bluntly; "The defendant supports ISIS-inspired violence, praises ISIS-inspired violence and believes violence is justified in furtherance of jihad," they wrote in court documents.

But Carpenter believes the U.S. Constitution protects him under the first amendment, guaranteeing him freedom of speech. He said he's been preparing for years to represent himself, expecting he would get arrested.

In handwritten federal court filings, he argues his conduct translating documents doesn't rise to the level of "material support" for ISIS. He argues that the court needs to take into consideration the alleged conduct of the act of terrorism.

"The alleged conduct [...] revolves around editing a translation clearly not what an ordinary person thinks of when 'a federal crime of terrorism' comes to mind," he wrote.

"God willing, and with his permission, [the case] will be dismissed and thrown out. If it makes it to trial, God willing Ill be found not guilty," Carpenter told 10News.

He said he's not worried if he is found guilty and sentenced to the maximum possible penalty 20 years in federal prison.

"I can worship God inside a jail or outside a jail. If God wills for me to be in jail, he wills for me to be in jail," he said.

Carpenter's case is scheduled for a jury trial in late August.

Continued here:
Knoxville man accused of trying to help ISIS terrorists says his actions are protected under freedom of speech - WBIR.com

CHARLESTON Members of a House of Delegates committee approved a bill Thursday to provide more curriculum transparency and limit the teaching of anti-racism concepts commonly labeled as Critical Race Theory while also ending further discussion and amendments to the bill.

The House Education Committee recommended House Bill 4011 Thursday afternoon in a 18-5 roll call vote. The bill now heads to the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee heard nearly two hours of questions from its counsel, a representative for the Department of Education, and the bills lead sponsor, Delegate Chris Pritt, R-Kanawha. But Delegate Caleb Hanna, R-Nicholas, made a motion to call the previous question on the strike-and-insert amendment, which cuts off all debate, and move the bill.

Will this mean the bill will come out of the committee with no formal debate whatsoever, no opportunity for the minority to make its case in debate, asked Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson.

Through this process, have we eliminated any opportunity to offer amendments to the amendment, asked committee minority Vice Chairman Cody Thompson.

If you vote it down, then you have the chance to offer amendments, said committee Chairman Joe Ellington, R-Mercer.

HB 4011, also called the Anti-Stereotyping Act, would require schools to post all training materials and curriculum online pertaining to non-discrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, bias, or any combination of those concepts.

The bill would prohibit the promotion or endorsement by school employees and county school boards of stereotypes based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The bill would not prohibit the discussion of how stereotypes have been used to discriminate or data that reveals disparities between categories of people based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

In a section, labeled Preservation of Freedom of Speech, the bill would prohibit schools and county board of education officials from compelling students and staff to adopt any belief or concept that one race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior to another. It states that no person should be blamed for the action committed in the past by someone of the same race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay for anti-racism and racial equity consultants or require students and staff to attend any sessions with such consultants, though it does protect voluntary attendance.

According to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that offers model legislation similar to HB 4011, 25 states have introduced bills aimed at limiting the teaching of philosophies based in part on Critical Race Theory.

Opponents of CRT say it teaches racism is systemic in American systems of government and institutions with white people inherently benefiting from these systems at the expense of marginalized minorities, such as Black people or the LGBTQ community.

Under questioning, Pritt told committee members that he was unaware of any specific instance in West Virginia where philosophies based on CRT are being taught in West Virginia.

Just because we cant cite a specific instance doesnt mean its not happening, Pritt said. Our jobs as legislators is to be proactive, not to react to everythingI cant give you the specifics on one particular issue.

Instead of protecting free speech rights, opponents of these kinds of anti-CRT and anti-racism bills, such as the West Virginia chapter of the ACLU, believe this legislation hinders freedom of speech and stifles discussion of complicated topics, such as racial injustice, discrimination, civil rights, and slavery.

This bill is designed to intimidate teachers from discussing diversity and equity, the ACLU-WV posted on Twitter. We need to teach issues like race the same way we teach math and science: as accurately as possible.

Delegate Ric Griffith, D-Wayne, said he was concerned about the unintended consequences of the bill. He said the bill could limit discussion of historical topics in schools.

Where does history and opinion overlap, Griffith asked. I can see there would be some gray areasalmost all questions require an opinionespecially in history. Is it a possibility that this could stir a pot that could boil?

(Adams can be contacted at sadams@newsandsentinel.com)

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post here:
Republican committee members force vote on anti-critical race theory bill - The Daily Times

During a nearly nine-hour trial last week, a Finnish prosecutor laid out the case against politician Pivi Rsnen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who are on trial for expressing their Biblical beliefs about homosexuality.

In April 2021, Finlands Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen charged Rsnena 62-year-old medical doctor, longtime Finnish member of parliament, and former interior ministerwith ethnic agitation. Rsnens past statements on homosexuality were likely to fuel intolerance, contempt, and even hatred toward homosexuals and thus oversteps the boundaries of freedom of speech and religion, the prosecutors office said in a statement.

The charges relate to three instances of Rsnen expressing Biblical and personal views on homosexuality. In a 2019 Twitter post, she attached a picture of the Biblical text in Romans 1:24-27 and denounced the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF), one of the countrys two national churches, for partnering with a local LGBT Pride event. The charges also target remarks she made on a nationally syndicated Finnish public radio program and a 23-page booklet she released in 2004 titled, Male and Female He Created Them.

Pohjola, 49, faces charges for publishing Rsnens booklet through the Luther Foundation Finland, a ministry arm of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland. The small group of conservative congregations formed after a 2013 split from the ELCF, in part over the denominations acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism.

The case against Rsnen and Pohjola has attracted widespread international attention. The International Lutheran Council, a worldwide association of confessional Lutherans, protested the unjust treatment of Rsnen and Pohjola and called the actions of the Finnish prosecutors egregious. A citizens petition supporting Rsnen has garnered more than 335,000 signatures.

Alliance Defending Freedom International, the legal group representing Rsnen and Pohjola, said a ruling against them would not establish an immediate legal precedent for other European countries. It would, however, set a new low bar for European free speech standards, said Lois McLatchie, a representative from ADF International. Five U.S. lawmakers urged Rashad Hussain, the U.S. ambassador for international religious freedom, to monitor the case. They argue it could open the door for prosecution of other devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, and adherents of other faiths for publicly stating their religious beliefs that may conflict with secular trends.

Rsnen and Pohjola face a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. The trial resumes on Feb. 14, and a verdict is expected to follow within a month. The prosecutor ordered fines for Rsnen, Pohjola, and the Luther Foundation. She also asked for Rsnens writings and statements to be removed from the internet, including the distribution of her booklet on the Luther Foundations website.

The booklet, intended for Lutheran laity, emphasizes that the Christian concept of humanity recognizes everyones inherent value, regardless of their sexual orientation. It characterizes same-sex partnerships as conflicting with Gods design for marriage and sex and sinful according to Scripture. Rsnen suggested homosexual tendencies are a result of a disorder of psycho-sexual development. On this point, Rsnen said during the trial that some information in the pamphlet is outdated since research and legislation have changed. Still, she argued it usefully reflects discussions taking place at the time. Censorship would open the floodgates to a ban on similar publications, Rsnen told WORLD.

Pohjola expressed similar concern. What worries me is if [the prosecutors] arguments are considered valid, thats a radical shift in the understanding of freedom of religion, he said. As a Lutheran bishop, I have no other way of teaching. We have to make a basic distinction between the value of human beings and judging our acts in light of the Word of God.

Rsnen, a pastors wife, mother of five, and grandmother of seven, clutched a Bible as she entered the court on Jan. 24. She called it an honor to defend freedom of speech and religion and vowed to continue fighting if the case reaches higher courts, including the European Court of Human Rights.

Following the proceedings, Rsnen sent an email to supporters saying she was relieved the long-awaited and heavy day was over. She said she waits for the verdict with a calm and hopeful mind.

View original post here:
Religious speech on trial in Finland | WORLD - WORLD News Group