Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The education secretary has been accused of misrepresenting some studies when discussing the Bill (Alamy)

6 min read15 May

Several academics and university officials have questioned the evidence underpinning Gavin Williamsons new Bill aimed at ensuring free speech at UK universities.

It comes after the government introduced the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to the Commons earlier this week, which would see universities fined by the Office for Students (OfS) if they fail to uphold freedom of speech on campus.

While some have welcomed the new legislation, others have accused the education secretary of polarising the debate by selectively citing existing research in the Bills favour.

I think [the Bill] is excessive and over the top, but its inevitably more nuanced than that, Jonathan Grant, a professor of public policy at Kings College London, told PoliticsHome.

His 2019 report on the topic was among those cited in the White Paper and supporting documents for the Bill, alongside research from Policy Exchange and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

But Grant argues that his work, and the work of other academics, has been misrepresented by Williamson and the wider government in relation to this new legislation.

There's a conflation of issues in the debate, the White Paper that was published in February, and again in the Bill. And that's the conflation between so-called cancel culture and issues around the chilling effect.

Earlier this year, Grant was forced to write to The Telegraph asking for a correction after the education secretary said he was shocked by the contents of the King's study, claiming that it found a quarter of students believed violence was an acceptable response to some forms of speech.

However, the report found that this figure was comparable with the general public, where 20% held the same view.

As I joke to my student daughter that White Paper would have failed a master's dissertation on public policy, whilst the language in [the Bill] probably wouldn't have been a failure but it wouldn't have been a great mark.

Because our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare,less than 1%, but we do find concerns around the chilling effects.

The representation of other studies cited by the government have also been called into question.

Writing for The Guardian in February, Alison Scott-Baumann, professor of society and belief at Soas University of London, said the White Paper for the Bill was more about appealing to voters and capitalising on the moral panic about universities than actually helping them to protect free speech.

She pointed out that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report mentioned by the government actually concluded that there is no major crisis of free speech on campus

And, she highlighted research by the OfS which found that, out of 62,094 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or the university authorities.

Our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare.

-Jonathan Grant,professor of public policy at Kings College London

The necessity of the legislation has also been questioned across the higher education sector. Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), said she felt the Bill was using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students.

"There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, but they come from the government and university managers, not staff and students," she said.

Grady continued: The truth is that widespread precarious employment strips academics of the ability to speak and research freely, and curtails chances for career development, she said.

Free speech and academic freedom are threatened more widely on campus by government interference in the form of the Prevent duty, and attempts to impose the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism on universities.

Patrick ODonnell, president of the York University Student Union (YUSU) said his and many other universities have a strong record of encouraging debate, with a wide spread of political and campaigning societies on campus.

No student has ever contacted me to express specific concern about a free speech issue on campus, he told PoliticsHome.

Frankly, students across the country are more concerned about the woeful lack of government financial support and its disappointing to see these issues absent from the Queens Speech.

The government should work with students unions to broaden and deepen engagement with controversial views not cause students to risk assess the life out of campus.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

-Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge

But Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, said the legislation was extremely welcome as it shows that the government is taking this seriously.

He agreed, however, that the issue of cancelled events at university had been conflated in much of the dialogue around the issue.

No platforming is extremely rare, it almost never happens. And it is a very small part of this problem, it's a vanishingly small part of this problem, he said.

So, the risk of any kind of action from no platforming I think would be negligible, if indeed it's correct that is rare already.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

Ahmed added that he hoped imposing a positive duty on institutions to ensure students and staff know they can speak out will make a real change to higher education.

Commenting on the introduction of the Bill, the education secretary said: It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.

"Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they dont meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

See the rest here:
Academics And Officials Have Questioned The Evidence Behind Gavin Williamson's Excessive University Free Speech Bill - PoliticsHome

Student letters

The following letters were submitted by Blaine Middle School students in Megan Schutts eighth grade social studies class. The students were assigned to write about freedom of speech, with the understanding that letters would be published in a local newspaper. This is the final week of publishing student letters.

The Editor:

I find it funny that the people who use their right to free speech so proudly are the same people who believe others should be punished for using theirs. Take the case of Colin Kaepernick for example, where former President Donald Trump took a disliking to his peaceful protests during the national anthem.

For those unaware, on August 26, 2016, Kaepernick sat during the national anthem in protest of police brutality. I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color, he said to NFL Media. Many people thought this was or should be against the First Amendment, which is false.

Kaepernicks protests were clearly not against any laws. He did not incite violence, nor did he cause harm. He simply stated an opinion through a small action; sitting down.

As I stated before, Trump was one of the people who disagreed with Kaepernicks actions. I think its a great lack of respect and appreciation for our country and I really said they should try another country, see if they like it better. See how well theyll be doing. See if they are going to be making $20 million being a second-string quarterback, he said, according to sportingnews.com writer Tadd Haislop.

Why would Trump of all people believe he should move out of the country, or be fired? On plenty of occasions, hes spoken his mind no matter whom he would offend, and showed pride in our country having the First Amendment. Shouldnt he fight for others to use their own freedom of speech?

If youre someone who often talks about your own viewpoint on political issues as you please, consider letting others do the same.

Camryn Garcia

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

The Editor:

Schools should lower requirements on dress codes.

I understand the importance of preparing students for future jobs that may require uniforms, but shaming them for what they choose to wear is not acceptable. Dress codes target young girls, and its unacceptable. It is a girls First Amendment right to wear what she wants, as well as feel comfortable and safe.

School should be a safe place for young girls, yet girls are being told that their bodies are the reason boys around them are misbehaving. Telling a girl what to wear in relation to social constructs is a violation of her rights; the social constructs being the expectation of modesty and purity in girls.

An anonymous girl that attends a high school in the United States recently posted a paragraph titled Is Her Mid-section Showing? on a wall at her school, and it read, Women of all ages deserve to feel comfortable in their own skin and no one should have the right to tell her that by wearing those kinds of clothes, she is a distraction to the people around her. Doesnt it make more sense to teach boys to keep their eyes to themselves rather than tell the girls to hide their bodies? ... Im a 15-year-old girl. If you are sexualizing me, you are the problem. That is one of the best ways Ive heard a person explain it.

If you think that girls and women are not mistreated when it comes to clothes, keep in mind that there are millions of girls that feel unsafe in their environments. By ignoring these girls, you are making the issue worse. Men and boys, please take the time to understand and fix this. It is a girls first amendment right to feel comfortable, while wearing what she wants.

Brianna McGee

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

Read more from the original source:
Letters to the Editor: May 20-26, 2021 - Blaine Northern Light

Kate Brumback| Associated Press

ATLANTA Georgias sweeping new overhaul of election laws threatens the fundamental right to vote, freedom of speech and the separation of powers, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit against the secretary of state and the members of the State Election Board was filed in federal court in Atlanta by county election board members, individual voters, election volunteers, nonprofit organizations and a journalist. It joins a half dozen other legal challenges, asking a judge to declare parts of the new election law unconstitutional and to prohibit the state from enforcing them.

Liberty requires at least three essential things an unfettered right to vote, freedom of speech, and the meaningful separation of powers, the lawsuit says. This lawsuit is necessary to preserve individual constitutional rights, and constitutional government, against the attacks that (the law) makes on these three pillars of liberty.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accused the Coalition for Good Governance, an election integrity advocacy group that is one of the plaintiffs, of spreading disinformation about the new law.

"We look forward to defeating another frivolous lawsuit, Raffensperger said in an emailed statement.

More: Georgia Gov. Kemp, voting chief Raffensperger defend election overhaul law

More: What does Georgia's new voting law SB 202 do?

One of the most significant changes in the new law is that it removes the secretary of state as chair of the State Election Board, replacing that elected official with a chair selected by the General Assembly. It also allows the state board to remove county election superintendents a combined election and registration board in most counties without providing much notice or giving them a meaningful chance to defend against their removal, and then allows the state board to appoint a single person in their place, the lawsuit says. While election boards are subject to requirements of Georgia's open meetings law, replacing them with a single person would mean that decisions would be made by that one person without the transparency of a public meeting, the lawsuit says.

In counties where the election and registration boards are separate, the election board is the superintendent. While the law provides for a replacement to be appointed for a removed superintendent, it does not provide for the appointment of a replacement for the board of registrars, which could leave a county without anyone to do that important work, the lawsuit says.

Another part of the law that has gotten a lot of attention and that has been challenged in other lawsuits because of assertions that it makes it more difficult to vote is a change in the identification verification requirement for absentee ballots. Instead of signing their ballot envelopes to be verified by election workers, voters must provide their name, date of birth, address and drivers license or state ID card number.

Rather than enhancing security as the laws sponsors and Raffensperger have asserted, this change creates the potential for fraud, vote dilution and identity theft, the lawsuit says. The personal identification information required by the new law can be easily stolen, opening the possibility for ballots to be requested and cast using voters' names and information without their knowledge, the lawsuit says.

The new law makes it a felony to intentionally observe an elector while casting a ballot in a manner that would allow such person to see for whom or what the elector is voting." But the large touchscreen voting machines Georgia uses make it hard for anyone in a polling place to avoid seeing a voter's selections, leaving voters and observers open to a felony charge that could discourage their participation, the lawsuit says.

The new law says monitors and observers cannot communicate any information that they see while monitoring the processing and scanning of absentee ballots to anyone other than an election official. It also makes it a misdemeanor for those monitors and observers to tally, tabulate, estimate votes. Those provisions mean that observers, including news reporters, would run the risk of criminal charges for reporting on absentee ballot processing, tabulation problems or progress, the lawsuit says.

The law also makes it a misdemeanor to photograph or record the face of a touchscreen voting machine while it is being used to vote or while a voters selections are displayed. News media frequently shoot photos and video of people voting and this provision would criminalize constitutionally protected speech, the lawsuit says.

Under the new law, the window to request an absentee ballot shrinks from 180 days before election day to 78 days before an election and closes 11 days before election day. That means voters who have an unforeseen emergency within 11 days of an election will be disenfranchised, and it also means that absentee voting will be impossible in some runoff elections, the lawsuit says.

The provisions that allow the State Election Board to replace local election officials are egregious and dangerous to every concept of free and fair elections, said Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance. And parts of the law that criminalize practices of citizen and press oversight of elections are abhorrent to modern democratic societies, she said.

Read the rest here:
Federal lawsuit targets Georgia voting law, citing threat to voting, speech rights - Online Athens

ROD LIDDLE: I am honoured to be speaking to you, Peter, on this anniversary of 50 years of causing havoc with the British establishment. Youre one of very few political heroes of mine. I know very few people in the country who are as committed to what they believe in as you. Now a film is being made about your life, isnt it? Its going to be on Netflix and its called Hating Peter Tatchell, which a lot of people have done over the years. How did that come about?

PETER TATCHELL: The film maker, Chris Amos, approached me several years ago and said, No one has ever made a film about you and about your 50-plus years of campaigning, I want to do it. So, I thought, well why not?

RL: Im just hoping that somewhere along the way you make some money out of this, Pete, because you havent done much for yourself in the last 50 years. Are you going to get any dosh out of this?

PT: The film was made on a shoestring so I dont think anybody is going to be getting much money out of it.

RL: Lets go back to the beginning. Youre Australian, born in Melbourne and came here as an act of cowardice, I might point out, Mr Tatchell, to avoid the draft in 1971-ish.

PT: Not entirely. Well, first of all, I left Australia because I had a moral and political objection to Australias involvement in the Vietnam war. I regard that as an unjust war so I wasnt prepared to serve.

RL: A catastrophic war, yes.

PT: Probably I should have stayed and gone to prison but yes, youre right, I cowardly left the country and came to Britain.

RL: My guess is that your political journey has always been rooted in that time of revolution, upheaval and awareness, which sprang out across Europe particularly in 68, is that roughly right?

PT: Well, my first political awareness was much earlier in 1963, when I was aged 11, I heard about the bombing of a black church in Birmingham, Alabama, where four young girls about my own age were murdered. So that motivated me to support and be inspired by the Black Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King. But my first real actual protest was in 1967 when I was aged 15 and still at high school. Ronald Ryan, an escaped convict, was due to be hanged for the alleged shooting dead of a prison warder during an escape and, having read the autopsy report on the dead warders body, which was published in the local newspaper, I worked out that it would have been almost impossible for Ryan to have fired the fatal shot. The bullet would have had to do almost a U-turn in mid-air. So that got me involved in the campaign to try to stop his execution.

RL: And that was at 15, Peter, that you read an autopsy report this is remarkable!

PT: In my mind there was at least a reasonable doubt about his guilt, but sadly he was hanged anyway, and it provoked a real crisis for me. I became a lifelong sceptic of authority. I thought to myself if the government, the police and the judges are prepared to hang this man, where there is at least some doubt about his guilt, I cant trust them any more. I have to question everything. So that led me to question Australias ill-treatment of the indigenous Aboriginal people, it led me to question Australias involvement in the Vietnam war, and it led me to question the persecution of gay people when I realised I was gay in 1969, aged 17.

RL: One of the wonderful things about you if I can I think the phrase is blow smoke up your ass youve always stuck to your principles about freedom of speech, and looking at each issue separately and never taking the easy line on it.

PT: My mother, a pretty hard-line Christian evangelical, always taught me to stand up for what I believe to be right and to not go along with the crowd. Now she meant that I think in a mostly religious sense, but I took it in a much broader sense.

RL: You were defeated as the Labour candidate for Bermondsey in 1983, and it stuck in my mind for these last 40-odd years that you were unjustly subjected to an appallingly homophobic campaign, which was won in the end by Simon Hughes, who turned out to be gay!

PT: The irony, the irony! But it was a very, very tough election. I mean some commentators have since said that it was probably the dirtiest and certainly well, probably the dirtiest, the most violent and most homophobic election in Britain in the second half of the 20th century. I mean, I had over 150 physical violent assaults when I was out canvassing, with people punching me in the face, spitting on me. I had a bullet through the front door, one arson attempt, it was a very, very scary time.

RL: That is incredible, I didnt know the full detail of all that. What did it teach you, that imbroglio with Simon Hughes and with the residents of Bermondsey?

PT: One thing it taught me was the power of the tabloid press. When I began the campaign I was way ahead, according to opinion polls, on 47 per cent of the vote. In the course of that election campaign, the constant barrage of misrepresentation, smears and so on, just whittled that support away. It made me very conscious of the importance of having a fair, accurate, responsible media. Thats absolutely essential for a democracy. The other thing it taught me of course was just how deeply homophobia was embedded in our society.

***

RL: Not once but twice you did a citizens arrest on Robert Mugabe. What was your objection to Big Bob?

PT: Where to start! Well, those arrest attempts were in response to appeals from human rights defenders inside Zimbabwe for me to do something to help highlight his human rights abuses. There was a whole gamut of things but the arrest attempts were predicated on the charge of torture.

RL: Didnt you also try to arrest Mugabe in Brussels as well? And werent you beaten up then as well?

PT: In the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, but then, yes, I was really badly beaten up by Mugabes bodyguards.

RL: Isnt that something which has had a lasting effect?

PT: It is, yes. I was ultimately briefly knocked unconscious and it has left me with some brain and eye damage which was compounded again in 2007 when I was attacked by neo-Nazis in Moscow.

RL: Yes, again, this was campaigning against Putins what you would see as a homophobic regime presumably?

PT: Yes I went to Russia on the invitation of Russian LGBT+ activists who were trying to hold a pride parade in Moscow. Thats perfectly lawful under Russias constitution and law but it had been banned. So we tried to march anyway, and a lot of people were seized by the police and arrested. Others like me got away, but we were eventually caught by neo-Nazis and very badly beaten.

RL: Back to Mugabe werent you quite pleased in 1981 when he won the election and became the leader of Zimbabwe?

PT: I was.

RL: And you didnt worry about what sort of man he was? I spoke to Ian Smith on the day Mugabe was elected and Smith said He is a tyrant who will abuse peoples human rights and turn Zimbabwe into a basket case. The right is sometimes right

PT: Well, that may be the case in this instance. Quite clearly it was untenable for black people to be denied the right to vote and for a system of quasi-apartheid to exist in Zimbabwe, so to have black majority rule was the right thing and initially, of course, Mugabe did lots of good positive things for the poor and the landless.

RL: But he was a totalitarian Marxist, Pete.

PT: Well, you can have Marxists who are democratic.

RL: Name me one?

PT: Well, there arent many.

RL: Not many indeed!

PT: What about Tom Wintringham, probably the greatest British Marxist of the 20th century, who was years and years ahead on the Nazi threat and the need to mobilise the British people in what he called a peoples war against the Third Reich? Many of his ideas were subsequently adopted by the Churchill government.

RL: But there is Marxism as an academic discipline and a means of thinking about things and there is Marxism when it gets its hands on the levers of power. I would have guessed that given the examples of Marxism in power in the last 70 years, you would be a bit averse to that mode of thinking now?

PT: Left-wing ideals in principle are fine and I uphold them, but so often in practice they are turned into a new form of tyranny and that is not what they should be about.

RL: What has happened to the far left? And what are its problems?

PT: The far left isnt all bad, but there are some people there who are supporting very bad tyrants and very bad policies. So, for example, it shocks me that most of the left in general has been silent and inactive against the Assad regime in Syria. I think thats quite shameful. Syria is the equivalent of Spain in the 1930s; its a litmus test of where you stand. A lot of people on the left rightly condemn Saudi Arabia and its war crimes

RL: And Israel, Peter.

PT: And Israel, yes.

RL: More than Saudi Arabia, more than Syria, more than any other country they condemn Israel, and youve condemned Israel.

PT: What Im criticising is the double standards. They condemn Saudi war crimes in Yemen but not Russian and Iranian war crimes in Syria thats double standards.

RL: Then theres identity politics. We become compartmentalised into these various silos of victimhood, dont we?

PT: I think the right is wrong to criticise identity politics. It is legitimate for people to campaign around specific instances of discrimination, whether it be racism or misogyny, but its also important to remember our common humanity, the things that unite us.

RL: Thats the point, isnt it? Surely you must see that there is a culture war going on which does divide people? And it may well be that that culture war is one of the reasons that the Labour party failed at the 2019 election, because an awful lot of people rejected that obsessive identitarian approach to politics. Do you reject it as well, or are you really at heart an identitarian?

PT: I wouldnt describe myself as identitarian, but I do think identity politics has been necessary in order to address issues that were being ignored by mainstream politics. It is only when women organised to demand specific rights and freedoms that eventually politicians and parliament began the process of change.

RL: But were there, arent we? Much as we may be there with gay equality, Pete. For example, I saw that the NUS recently said that gay people were not a victimised minority but were actually privileged and possessed many of the privileges that oppress other minority groups. The whole thing seems to be eating itself.

PT: I think we have to be very careful about the way sections of the left tend to demand absolute purity. None of us is perfect.

RL: But the trouble is, Pete, your whole career, your whole life of campaigning has held freedom of speech in enormous esteem, but there is an awful lot of the left which believes debate is otiose and that freedom of speech is an overrated commodity.

PT: It isnt just a left failing, but you are right I mean freedom of speech is one of the most important and precious of all human rights. Causing offence sometimes is involved in genuine freedom of speech. I stand by that however, there are certain red lines. I think if someone makes false, damaging allegations like saying someone is a rapist or a paedophile, then

RL: Or a racist.

PT: Or a racist, if it is untrue and unfounded, thats not freedom of speech. If someone engages in threats, menaces and harassment, thats not freedom of speech. And particularly if someone engages in incitement to violence, thats not freedom of speech. I think that generally the best way to deal with bad ideas is with good ideas. So for example, when there were calls to ban Germaine Greer, I said dont ban her, find a speaker to speak against her, protest outside the meeting, show why shes wrong.

RL: But Peter, debate and freedom of speech are bourgeois and they are a reflection of white privilege and not everybody has access to that freedom of speech etc, etc

PT: Well, that is true but there are also many on the right who take the same

RL: Come on, Im not sticking up for the right here, Im a socialist for fucks sake.

PT: Well, there is a trend towards placing limits on freedom of speech, but I think it is somewhat exaggerated. Most students in surveys say that they value freedom of speech, including the freedom of speech of people with whom they disagree.

RL: This is where we differ, I suppose. I think that censoriousness is spreading. But perhaps you have a tendency towards utopianism? About five or six years ago you said that Muslims and gays should join together as being similarly oppressed. I remember thinking: What effing planet are you on, Pete? Isnt that kind of unrealisable?

PT: Well, I know its realisable because Ive seen it in the campaign work that I do. My challenge to the Muslim community is to recognise the common experience of prejudice, discrimination and hate crime that they face in common with LGBT+ people. Of course its different, but its still a common thread of prejudice.

RL: Can I break in there? Fair enough and a fair point, but what I really meant was: when are you going to go on a gay pride march in Ramallah?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea.

RL: Are you a masochist?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea with some Palestinian activists and they said it was too dangerous for them and I shouldnt go there.

RL: Yes, but what do you learn from that? You are attacking Israel at the moment, which is a democracy, which allows Arabs to vote in its democracy; the only country where Arabs are allowed to vote and where you can have a gay pride march through Tel Aviv.

PT: Yes, undoubtedly there are still serious problems with the Palestinian territories, particularly Hamas-controlled Gaza youd better not be gay there. Ive helped gay people flee Gaza and seen the abuses and torture inflicted on them by Hamas police and security agents

***

RL: Lastly, I know youve spoken out on the Qatari World Cup previously are there any plans afoot for campaigning against that over the next year?

PT: There are but they have to remain confidential! Certainly Im working a lot behind the scenes with Qataris, not just LGBT Qataris but also human rights defenders, womens rights activists, labour union campaigners and so on, to keep Qatar and its human rights abuses up on the agenda. It is scandalous that Fifa ever agreed to allow Qatar to have the World Cup in the first place.

RL: Its not really scandalous, its corrupt.

PT: Yes, well there are very serious allegations that Qatar was corruptly awarded the World Cup based on bribes.

RL: Yes, no question at all. And I think these enormous events in future will tend to be held in totalitarian countries because these are the countries that can ride roughshod over all objections to those events and which are able to exploit their workforces so that they are done quite cheaply.

PT: Just before I forget, did you hear about the case of the pastor who was arrested in Boris Johnsons constituency?

RL: No, sorry, what was that?

PT: His name was Pastor John Sherwood, I think. He was arrested for preaching in a shopping centre that homosexuality was sinful and he said himself that he was a sinner, but the police said there had been complaints and arrested him quite roughly and I think totally disgracefully breaching his right to free speech. Ive offered to testify in his defence even though obviously I disagree with his views on homosexuality.

RL: He was presumably just quoting from Revelation or something.

PT: Yes, he wasnt being inflammatory or threatening, he wasnt being hateful, he was simply expressing a point of view. I found it disagreeable but I dont think he should be the subject of arrest and prosecution.

RL: He sounds a bit like my mother-in-law, who hands out leaflets that say much the same thing and when she meets a gay or transgender person says God doesnt hate you, he just hates what you do. Peter, it was lovely to talk to you, as always thank you so much.

PT: Likewise. Tell her shed better watch out under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: annoying people is a potential offence!

RL: Its a potential offence, yes, thats right! That says it all really.

Hating Peter Tatchell is available on Netflix

Continued here:
Culture wars, identity politics and free speech: Rod Liddle and Peter Tatchell in conversation - Spectator.co.uk

The Role of the Freedom of Speech view essay example

I belive the most important freedom in the first amendment is the freedom of speech. It allows us to express our opinion and speak freely is much needed to bring about change in the world. I believe free speech has always been important because we...

The Right to Freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) is an inalienable right of every citizen of the country; however the right is not absolute and subject to certain limitation. This right is enjoyed exclusively by the citizens i.e., natural persons...

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. In my opinion, these rights have been abused in such a manner that the freedom of press has been pushed beyond the boundaries of truth....

Freedom of speech must have limits and censorship because I feel for ones thoughts to be taken into consideration it should be brought across in a passionate yet respectful manner. My definition of freedom of speech is being able to speak your mind and express...

Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want as long as it is not false and causes chaos. Freedom of speech came about in 1791 with freedom of religion, press and the right to assemble. The Americans got this from earlier events...

The United States of America is known for the freedom it offers its citizens, however, these freedoms are becoming majorly restricted. Among these freedoms is the freedom to express yourself, either through speech or press. The Bill of Rights is the document that gives the...

On September 17th, 1787 after four long months of conflict and painstaking work 39 men signed the US Constitution, which from that point forward would be the supreme law of the land. The Constitution became the ultimate doctrine and the foundation of Americas future. No...

Did you know that 95% of North Korean citizens do not have access to Wi-Fi? You are probably wondering why are these people tortured this way? Well, the regime doesnt allow them access to the internet in order to preserve the negative information of the...

In this day and age, due to more freedom of speech being available in many parts of the world, many different schools of thought exist. These schools of thought range from the very extreme to what would be considered to be relatively normal in the...

With all of the racial issues going on around the world, there has been an abundance of issues regarding freedom of speech. The first amendment of the Constitution declares that all citizens of the United States has the freedom of speech, excluding threats, child pornography...

In the United States Constitution the First Amendment provides citizens with the right to free speech. This is a key factor in how America was brought up and for the people who live in the U.S today. It is an important right for them to...

The first amendment provides an adequate tent to shelter products made under the auspices of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as it often times protects students views on moral values. Anything opposing such moral values will be left exposed, unprotected by the tent....

Freedom of Speech on Campus In recent years, in attempt to reduce hate crimes and to protect the minorities, many colleges have adopted codes and policies prohibiting offensive speech based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. While college administrators may find speech regulations as...

The Past and Individuality George Orwells novel 1984 warns of a totalitarian state in the future. The totalitarian state, Oceania, under the control of the Party and its leader Big Brother, poses a society where the government is always right and where the people have...

In the article Fighting Words 101, Jeff Chu questions wither legislators are the right people to step into action legislating against academic freedom of speech within college campuses. Chu explains the idea of bills created by professor Bob Hagedorn and David Horowitz which are to...

When people decide to have children, they never expect to be the few parents who children are born with differences from their own. These differences can be a disability, sexuality identity, or even their ability. What happens when these parents end up having children with...

I do not agree with what you have to say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it, a quote giving perspective of many on free speech. This quote gives an example of a different view some may have on this topic,...

In the City of Chicago, shootings seem to be at an all time high. The rising controversy of the shootings of unarmed African Americans exists not only in the City of Chicago, but many major cities and urban areas. Widely public instances include the fatal...

If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Free Speech has been a major topic for years, controversies on different aspects of the 1st amendment have plague America for centuries. The limits of...

Read more here:
Argumentative Essays on Importance of Freedom of Speech ...

When the first Amendment was put into place freedom of speech was born, we were all given the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint. Being able to let

words roll off of your tongue without having to second guess your thoughts could possibly be one of the greatest perks of living in America. Although we are free to say what we want, we are not allowed to express any opinion that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national orientation, or disability (hate speech). Does freedom of speech apply online if we are given limitations? Is there a way to compromise? Has the line of protecting users with censorship and still allowing individuals to express themselves freely become smudged?

Social media has become a one stop shop for many; keeping up with current events, celebrity gossip, a journal, a tool to grow business and most importantly a sanctuary where the first amendment could be utilized as a shield protecting them from the consequences of their words. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have made a more conscious effort to regulate the content posted on their platform. According to an CBS News article, this summer Facebook released a list of guidelines that go into how something qualifies as a Trending Topic causing a few eyebrows to be raised due to the notion that their tactics are biased toward controversial stories and posts. Later Facebook also received backlash for banning a Vietnam war image due their regulations on pornography, later having to backtrack their decision stating: Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed (The Verge). Facebook has the potential to become one of the worlds biggest source for news and their strong stance of censorship could affect what users have access to. Last month Facebook wanted to ban Donald Trump from their network due to violation but Marc Zuckerberg stepped in with the fear that these actions would be distributive during the election although it was clear that some of his content could be considered hate speech. Does being an electoral candidate hold you to different standards on social media? Is it up to social media applications to control what ideas are censored? How do administrators create polices that do not impose on others rights while still maintaining an overall positive user experience?

Of course it is important for platforms to monitor for child pornography, harassment, online bullying, and overall hate speech but how do they create a perfect balance. It is important for users to be able to utilize social media as a safe haven and not feel as if they will be demonized for expressing their views as long as it does not make another feel threatened. Easier said than done? In order for this to be done properly social media sites must find a reasonable compromise, giving users a platform to safely express their views without fear of punishment.

Twitter might have found the recipe. In October users came across a muted words feature on Twitter (The Next Web) This option allowed users to create a list of unwanted words and phrases that they did not want to see on their timeline still leaving them available for others to see. Sources expressed that this feature was released prematurely and would be released in the future with an update. After doing my research it has not be fully explained how this will work but it seems that this addition to Twitter could be what all social media needs to keep the peace.

Gabrielle Byrd

Emerging Media Graduate Student

Loyola University

See original here:
Does Freedom of Speech Exist - Emerging Media - Loyola ...

The tumultuous events of the past year have highlighted the First Amendments vital role as a pillar of American democracy. They have also underscored the need for vigilance in defending it.

Journalists coverage of these events the pandemic, the nationwide protests denouncing police killings of Black Americans and supporting racial justice, and the bitterly contested presidential election and its aftermath has put renewed focus on the protection of freedom of the press.

Attacks by law enforcement on protesters and journalists have brought to prominence two other First Amendment protections: freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Freedom of speech is also at the center of ongoing debates over controversial speakers on college campuses and the role of social media companies in limiting or blocking hate speech and disinformation on their platforms.

Now, the initial amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being tested on multiple fronts:

Because of these and other factors, understanding the First Amendments role in protecting key freedoms is now especially important.

Expression by speakers across the ideological spectrum is facing actual or threatened suppression by not only government officials, but also other powerful societal forces, from tech giants to social media mobs, Nadine Strossen, an expert on constitutional law and a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. No matter who we are, no matter what we believe, we all have a stake in ensuring meaningful free speech for everyone.

This starts with knowing the rights and freedoms that the amendment protects. A 2019 survey by the Freedom Forum Institute found that only 1% of Americans could name all five: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. More than a quarter (29%) could not name a single one.

Asked about the First Amendments language at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year, even Amy Coney Barrett nominated to fill the seat long held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg was unable to cite the right to petition the government.

It extends to knowing what the amendment covers and what it does not.

The First Amendment is frequently invoked in discussions of online speech. While it states that Congress shall make no law that infringes on the protections it cites, it says nothing about private companies, such as Facebook or Twitter, curating content on their platforms and restricting speech that they deem harmful.

As a result, support for it should never be taken for granted.

The future of the First Amendment seems uncertain. So does the underlying reality of public opinion in this area and its trajectory moving forward. That was the conclusion of High School Student Views of the First Amendment, a 2019 report commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation that summarized the findings of seven national surveys of U.S. high school students from 2004 to 2018. A Knight survey of college students, published in 2020, found that students today are less inclined than their recent predecessors to view First Amendment freedoms as secure in society.

Why? Heres one reason: Court decisions that are often the most important for example, whether displaying a swastika is a form of free speech or whether speakers should be permitted to share offensive views on college campuses may be challenging for many to understand.

This makes it imperative that the First Amendment be taught in schools as the bedrock of the countrys commitment to individual rights and responsibilities and a core part of civics education.

As Strossen told me, The only secure protection for free speech is a public that understands its importance and therefore defends it.

TheNews Literacy Project, a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy.

The rest is here:
Opinion: The past year has underscored the need for vigilance in defending the First Amendment - Poynter

A colleague recently asked me if I approved of Big Tech censoring political and cultural voices on their platforms. My colleague believes as do I in natural rights, minimal government and that owners of private property can use it as they see fit. We both condemned the Big Tech censorship. Then he asked if the government could regulate these platforms. I offered that it could not.

These questions arose from the reported efforts by Facebook to bar from its platforms those who wish to offer scientific, political or cultural arguments against mass vaccinations. Many of these arguments are sound and fascinating. Nearly all are provocative. They are the essence of free speech. Should those who offer them be silenced on a platform used by billions of folks?

Here is the backstory.

The freedoms of thought, speech and publishing are natural rights. Just as one can naturally think as one wishes, one can say what one thinks and publish what one says. Speaking and publishing are also constitutional rights since the First Amendment expressly protects them from government infringement. A natural right comes from our humanity not from the government and is knowable and usable by the exercise of reason.

Speech is second nature to us, and in America for the most part speech is free. In this context, the word free doesnt mean without cost. It means without a government permission slip or reprisal.

The history of free speech in America is a tortuous one. In 1798, John Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to punish speech critical of himself and the Congress. Abraham Lincoln arrested newspaper reporters and editors in northern states critical of his war leadership. Woodrow Wilson arrested those who urged draft resistance during his war.

In all of these interferences with speech, the government has done the interfering. Indeed, the reach of the First Amendment is limited to government. Even though it states, Congress shall make no law, today, that language applies to all legislative bodies and executive officials local, state and federal. Congress cannot outlaw speech; neither can a state legislature or a city council. The president cannot interfere with speech; neither can a governor or local officials.

What about private persons operating private venues? Can executives at Facebook ban speech with which they disagree? The short answer is: Yes, they can.

Facebook operates a business that consists of making a digital bulletin board available for all. The bulletin board is private property. It is not owned by the government. The owner of private property who invites others onto his property for the benefit of both can establish ground rules for the use of that property. You can kick me out of your garden party because you dont like the color of my shirt. You can also do so if you dont like the tenor of my words. And you can fire me as your lawyer if you hate my political views. The government cannot do any of these things.

If Big Tech platforms want to migrate from communication to indoctrination, they are free to do so under basic property rights and First Amendment law. While I understand and share the anger and frustration of those whose views have been censored, this is not a problem for government to solve because it is private property and the government can neither silence nor compel speech on private property.

The very threats to insinuate government controls between writers and their venues are themselves unconstitutional, as they constitute chilling.

Chilling consists of any intentional government behavior official or rogue that gives a speaker or writer pause or second thoughts out of fear of what the government might do as a consequence of the exercise of freedom of speech. Thus, an FBI agent coming nose to nose with you as you are publicly criticizing the FBI would constitute chilling, as would the threat to do so, as is the threat by persons in government to regulate the Big Tech bulletin boards.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of evaluating the content of speech. I am not talking about noise in the streets at 3 a.m. I am talking about public officials having the power to dictate what private people and venues may say and publish.

Such government behavior would undermine the fabric and core of the United States. It would truly be a remedy worse than the disease because the government would favor the speech of its patrons and punish the speech of its adversaries the very acts the First Amendment was written to prevent.

None of this is to say that Big Tech executives are faultless. It is hateful for them to define our identities. And that is what they do when they silence critics of vaccines or even when they silence a former president. Everyone has the natural right to be the author of his or her own identity and destiny. And we have the natural right to become informed by gathering whatever data and opinions we choose to gather. We are not infants who thrive on a filtered stream of news and opinion, tailored to please those who do the filtering.

What can we do about this? We can use the tools of the free market and the First Amendment. We can loudly leave the censoring venues and not patronize their advertisers. We can build and support other venues. We can preach the values of an informed public and the virtues of personal liberty. We can foster widespread opinions that censorship is repellant and censors should be shunned.

But we can never use the government to compel or evaluate speech. That will destroy what freedoms we have.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:
Big Tech and freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel

Ohio State Reps. Jeff LaRe and Shane Wilkin introduced House Bill 22, which is aimed to modify the state's law in order to expand the definition of obstruction of justice.

Under the new legislation, "failure to follow lawful order from a law enforcement officer or diverting a law enforcement officer's attention," would be added to ORC 2921.32.

If the bill is passed, it would make it a punishable crime for individuals to interfere with the duties of a law enforcement officer after a lawful order is given.

Opponents of the bill currently being considered in the Ohio House are warning that its goal of expanding the definition of obstruction of justice will undermine police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself.

Sponsors of House Bill 22 say its needed to better protect the public and law enforcement in light of last summers protests following the police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

Rep. Tavia Galonski of Akron says she already has concerns about police efforts to protect and serve.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Undermining police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself

House Bill 22 would hamper the efforts of individuals who see injustice and believe it should be pointed out, she said.

The proposed changes under House Bill 22 include adding taunting as a form of obstruction of justice, which is also big concern for her.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Concerns about the language in the proposed changes

"One persons taunt is another persons attempt to save a life, she said.

Galonski also points to the fact that only three out of 30 people testifying at committee hearings so far have spoken in favor of the bill.

See the rest here:
House Bill 22 Raises Concerns for Police Reform Efforts and Freedom of Speech - WKSU News

In the upcoming week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in three First Amendment cases. While government regulation of speech lies at the heart of these cases, their facts which range from a cheerleaders use of profanity on social media to state regulations for charitable contributions could not be more different.

On Monday, April 26, SCOTUS will hear the consolidated cases ofAmericans for Prosperity v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra.

California law requires charities within the state to submit a list of the names and addresses of their major donors. Under this policy, non-profits must report anyone who donated $5,000 or more or who contributed more than 2-percent of the organizations total contributions to the state; California then keeps that information confidential.

Conservative watchdog groups filed lawsuits arguing that the policy violates the First Amendment, specifically in that it deprives donors of their privacy in association. According to the plaintiff petitioners, California has no need to compel this sensitive donor information to serve any law-enforcement goal, and the state virtually never uses any of the information for law-enforcement purposes.

The Ninth Circuit applied exacting scrutiny and sided with California; petitioners now ask SCOTUS to reverse, arguing that the case is a politically-charged matter of the highest stakes. From Americans for Prosperitys brief:

This is not the time or the climate to weaken First Amendment rights to anonymity. Social and political discord have reached a nationwide fever. Perceived ideological opponents are hunted, vilified, and targeted in ways that were unthinkable before thedawn of the Internet. As partisan pendulums swing back and forth in governmental offices, and as online campaigns rage against perceived ideological foes, donors to causes spanning the spectrum predictably fear that exposure of their identities will trigger harassment and retaliation far surpassing anything reasonable people would choose to bear. Vindicating freedom of association in this context will therefore mean the difference between preserving a robust culture and practice of private association and charitable giving, versus opening the door to chilling governmental intrusion.

On Wednesday, April 28, the Court will again consider the First Amendment in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case about a high-school students Snapchat story.

B.L. had been shopping with friends on a Saturday afternoon in 2017 when she posted a Snapchat story showing her frustration with a recent decision by her cheerleading team. The post included a selfie in which B.L. and her friend extended their middle fingers. The caption read, Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything. A second post said, Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but thats [sic] doesnt matter to anyone else?

When B.L.s school officials saw the post, B.L. was cut from the junior varsity cheerleading team on the grounds that she had violated team and school rules. The schools official policy requires athletes to have respect for [their] school, coaches . . . [and] other cheerleaders, avoid foul language and inappropriate gestures, and refrain from sharing negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches . . . on the internet.

B.L.s parents ultimately brought a federal lawsuit after they exhausted their appeals at the school-district level. At both the district and circuit court levels, they won. The case, though, presents complex questions regarding off-campus speech. While under prevailing law students do notshed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, schools may legally impose some limits on student speech, both on and off campus.

The case presents the Court with an opportunity to hand down a framework to be used by all circuits; currently, the approach used by theThird Circuit in B.L.s appeal is at odds with approaches used by the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits in other cases.

[image via Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
The Supreme Court Justices Are Set to Hear Two Very Different Free Speech Cases What You Should Know - Law & Crime