Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia is suing political artist and activist Fahmi Reza for his recent satirical artwork that has allegedly insulted the institution. Fahmi himself has stood firm on his stance that satire is a form of expression that he has a right to exercise.

BFM speaks to Thulsi Manogaran, an activist with a civil society coalition working on freedom of expression, on the position of satire when it comes to freedom of speech. Lawyer Khaizan Sharizad Razak then tells the station about the legalities in pursuing action against satire. Finally, Ernest Ng, comic book writer of CovidBallz, explains why satire is important.

Producers: Loo Juosie, Adeline Choong and Alia ZefriPresenters: Sharmilla Ganesan and Lee Chwi Lynn

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.

More:
Should satire be protected as free speech? - Aliran

James Acaster. Photo-Illustration: by Vulture; Photo.by YouTube

Earlier this year, someone tweeted a clip with the caption james acaster calling out transphobic comedians for two minutes straight. The joke, which is from the opening of Acasters most recent, critically acclaimed special, Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999, went megaviral. In it, Acaster mocks comedians, like Ricky Gervais, who, when anyone criticizes them, dont listen to the feedback and instead pat themselves on the back for having such challenging material. The rest of the special is less focused on the state of comedy, but it continues in this vein by exploring what is actually challenging in stand-up, like talking about difficult subjects and taking responsibility when you do so.

On Vultures Good One podcast, Acaster talks about how he writes material, figuring out how to talk about mental health onstage, his complicated relationship with his audience, and being on the The Great British Bake Off. You can read an excerpt from the transcript or listen to the full episode below. Tune in to Good One every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

It seems like the special is questioning what material is actually challenging and what comedians use their free speech for. This is explicitly the case with the joke about Ricky Gervais types.At the time when I was writing it, I felt that a lot of people felt the same way I did. I thought I was doing an observational bit and just pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of comics who say, Oh, Im too challenging, and Im challenging the status quo by saying this. The status quo is what you just said its small-mindedness and bigotry and stereotyping of minorities and marginalized groups. That has been the status quo for centuries. And what you are doing is you are talking like people have talked your entire life. When you were a baby, people had this point of view, and the point of view that youre challenging is the progressive one that is actually challenging you. And you dont like being challenged. Youre doing this routine.

These people also say, Im just trying to start a conversation. Im just having a debate. Its like, yeah, and this person is responding to you and youre trying to shut it down by saying, Im just trying to have a conversation. Youre not responding to them. So, you dont know how conversations work. You dont know how debates work. All you want to do is say a very old-fashioned point of view that and no one can challenge it. Everything that youre saying about wanting to challenge people, wanting to have a conversation, free speech being important, is bullshit, because all of your actions are the opposite of it. So, therefore, this is ripe for comedy, because what you are doing is ridiculous. Its funny to do a routine about this.

I would find that sometimes I would get people who disagree with me being very vocal about that. I had to kick a man out because he was shouting hate speech at the top of his voice which is different from freedom of speech, by the way. Free speech and hate speech are different things. So, yeah, originally it was like, Well, this is just a routine that Im sure most people can relate to. And even if they cant relate to it, its just pointing out how ludicrous something is. And so hopefully that will get them onboard to laugh at that. And that was it.

I would be surprised if I had successfully changed anyones mind in a way, because I feel its pretty nave to think that, especially these days. People just get more and more uncomfortable with change. But the main thing was for it to be for people who feel the same way I do, and to just do that routine, because theres so many routines which are the opposite of it. You just want to put a routine out there going, Actually, I disagree with that, and enough of that comedy, please.

In the show, you give a disclaimer that what youre talking about is in the past and that youve already dealt with it. There are certain comedians who have a different approach Let me talk it out onstage but you intentionally didnt want to give an audience your raw experience of that. Can you talk about that and the instinct some comedians have to use the stage for therapy?Its not that I dont think its the right thing to do; it wasnt the right thing to do for me. I want there to be a healthy boundary between me and the audience. Doing a show like this, where Im talking about my real life and my struggles with mental health in the past, people can feel like they are now entitled to step over those boundaries and speculate as to whether your mental health actually is okay now. I dont want to encourage that in any way. And I definitely dont want to open up to them about stuff that I havent opened up to people in my life about. If Im talking to an audience about it, then Ive also talked to my family about it. Ive talked to my friends about it. Ive talked to a therapist. Ive dealt with it with myself.

Beyond having appropriate boundaries, there will be people in the audience who are going through stuff themselves, and I dont want to go up in front of them before Ive got a good handle on things. I dont want to encourage what can sometimes be quite a romantic phase when youre inside the worst part of things. Sometimes when you are struggling, you can have a tendency to romanticize it and see yourself as some sort of, like, Hemingway. I dont want to be onstage being like, Im a mess, and doesnt that make me such a great, mysterious artist? And then the people in the audience might think, Thats me too. I will continue to go down that path and not get help.

You cant sort it out onstage. You can probably develop inappropriate relationships with audience members who come up to you after shows, want to talk to you about it, and then the codependency stuff happens and all this mess could arise from that. So as long as youre not trying to fix yourself and its more cathartic, its probably fine.

Though people have been talking about their struggles with mental health in the States for a while now, I get a sense that its still fairly new in Britain. Especially the part where you talk about calling the Samaritans, after your experience on The Great British Bake Off. How did you approach it?Id already been doing a lot of the routines that touched on mental health, though I didnt deliberately set out to do a mental-health show. Those things happened to me, and it was all I wanted to talk about onstage. The more that I did it onstage, the more that it got treated like a mental-health show. People would either come up to me after to say, Thanks for talking about that, or people would heckle during the show. After I said what I say about having suicidal thoughts, I had people heckling me Man up! or saying I was a crybaby. Things like that would happen and you go, Oh, this is a bigger deal than I thought it would be. When that happened, you kind of get a bit like, Okay, there is some responsibility here.

I had a work-in-progress show, and during a routine about my agent dropping me and a lot of that is about being gaslit by my agents I was still filling out the routine and it was getting nothing. When that bit got nothing, it just felt like I was oversharing with the audience; I was telling them a really personal thing that felt heavy and depressing for them to hear. There was a man in the front row of a very small group of 50 people in a very small room. He was right on the front, virtually in my lap. And he just sat in the silence, until he said, Its hard, isnt it? And I thought he was saying, Stand-up comedy is hard and youre doing it badly. I got slightly defensive, but then he was like, Ive been through some similar stuff recently. I was like, Oh, Im sorry about that. And then he started crying. I gave him a hug, because I thought thats what I should do. So, its just me and a man onstage hugging, and the rest of the audience is just sitting there.

Afterwards I was like, I have to make sure that doesnt happen again. I have to make sure that that man or whoever in the audience doesnt feel like that, and that I havent just pushed them to the point where they relive their own trauma and start crying. That was the big thing of going, Okay, how are you doing this routine? Make sure its funny, because if its funny, its relatable to that guy. If I make the jokes relatable and Im not laughing at myself and going, Haha, I was feeling bad, and instead its the situation and how weve let it get to this point. Its the ludicrousness of how its got to this point where no ones helped me, and its more of a reflection of the society we live in, and therefore, everyones in on the joke in the moment; no ones been laughed at. And those people hopefully wont cry and feel like, Now all Im reminded of is a bad time in my life.

I stumbled into that Samaritans bit. Luckily, the first time I did it, I realized the joke is that I have been on Bake Off and I went to talk to Samaritans while covering up the fact of being on Bake Off. The joke in that situation is I had to lie and say I was a baker, which is what really happened. In the special, I kind of undersell saying I called them. I do it as a faraway thing, and I move quite quickly onto the next thing. And I put that line in there as well: If youve done it before, you know that the first time you do it, its like this So then youre not assuming that the majority of the audience dont call. Because normally in a lot of comedy, the punch is down, and it assumes everyone in the audience is like the comic, and the comic is normal and doesnt have anything wrong with them or weird about them: We can laugh at minorities or other vulnerable people or whoever, because thats not us. But the fact of the matter is those people are in the room, and youre currently making them feel like theyre weird and theyre sacks of shit. And actually going like, Those of you who have done this, you know that this Suddenly the people who havent done it, youre not making them feel like outsiders, because they already think theyre in the majority because thats what the society tells them. But it will make them go, Oh, those people are here. So, actually, its probably quite rude to laugh in their face.

You learn to try to flip the assumption of whats normal and that everyone in the audience is the normal person, because actually, none of them are. Theyve all got something that theyve been made to feel ashamed of. And its much more interesting to try and go, That thing that youve been made to feel ashamed of? Thats mad that they did that to you, and actually, youre not weird. The ludicrous thing is the system thats made you feel like that. We can laugh at that, but were not laughing at you because youre actually all right, and you dont need to go away from this gig feeling even worse than before and feeling like youre more on your own than you were before.

Read the original post:
James Acaster Never Wants to Make an Audience Member Cry Again - Vulture

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is leading the charge, picked up by a number of states, to enact tough new anti-riot legislation that comes dangerously close to infringing on freedom of speech, advocates warn. In Florida, DeSantis is expected to sign bill that bans violent or disorderly assemblies and punishes any efforts to defund police with very little detail. Oklahoma has also introduced legislation that protects drivers from accidentally hitting protesters if they are fleeing a riot. The bill also makes the protesters financially and criminally liable for damage or injuries if they are blocking streets, with penalties including a year of jail time. Iowa also has introduced a similar driver protection law after more than 100 incidents of people driving into demonstrations last summer. At least 93 similar bills have been proposed in 35 states after George Floyd protests last summer. Freedom of speech advocates warn that these bills are dangerous. These bills talk about riots, but the language that they use is so sweeping that it encompasses way more than what people imagine, Elly Page, a senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law told USA Today, adding that the bills end up criminalizing peaceful, legitimate First Amendment-protected protest.

See original here:
Wave of New 'Anti-Riot' Legislation Threatens Free Speech - The Daily Beast

Its certainly one of the most misunderstood subjects between France and the United States: freedom of speech. But this doesnt scare the organizers of the transatlantic festival: Libert dexpression, Free Speech and Cancel Culture, which will take place April 23-25.

Organized by the Services culturels de lAmbassade de France aux tats-Unis, the French Institute Alliance Franaise (FIAF), and the Maison franaise de NYU, this virtual rendez-vous assembles a dozen speakers from both sides of the Atlantic, such as the documentary filmmaker Caroline Fourest, author Thomas Chatterton Williams, philosopher Manon Garcia, and Charlie Hebdo survivor Philippe Lanon. Over the course of three days, the speakers will explore different facets of this freedom, through the themes of religion (April 23), sexuality (April 24), and race (April 25).

Advertisement

The Franco-American misunderstanding of this issue of free speech stems from different visions of what constitutes a unified culture and what role individual differences, whether sexual, racial or religious, should play in a national culture, says Suzanne Nossel, director of PEN America, an organization that advocates for free speech in literature. She is the author of the book Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All and will open the festivals first discussion on religion and secularism.

The festival takes place against a backdrop of concern in France and the United States about the state of free speech. In July, nearly 150 intellectuals, activists and journalists took issue with the emergence of cancel culture on the left after the death of African-American George Floyd in an op-ed published in Harpers magazine. This trending term refers to calls for boycotts of personalities or companies whose views are deemed controversial. The free exchange of information and ideas, which is the very lifeblood of liberal societies, is becoming more limited every day. Censorship, which one would have expected to emerge from the radical right, is also becoming widespread in our culture: intolerance of differing opinions, a taste for public humiliation and ostracism, a tendency to dissolve complex political issues into a blinding moral certainty, argued the signatories of the letter, including writer Salman Rushdie and linguist Noam Chomsky.

The assassination in October 2020 of Samuel Paty, a teacher in the Paris region who had show to his students, several days before, controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons about Islam, relaunched the debate on the threats that hover over free speech in France. Today, part of the political and influential class in France has become unnerved by the arrival of cancel culture and American identity politics about race and gender in academia. The debate is so bad that the New York Times asked, in February, Will American Ideas Tear France Apart?

There are outcries in both countries, observes Suzanne Nossel. It is the consequence of the fear of a loss of privileges and the real concern that certain ideas will be suppressed or that certain opinions will no longer be recognized as acceptable.

Suzanne Nossel has seen at her level the difficulty in getting the French and Americans to agree on the subject. In 2015, PEN Americas decision to give an award to Charlie Hebdo journalists led six of its members to boycott its gala. One of the protesters put forward the cultural intolerance of the satirical newspaper to justify his decision.

While the director of PEN America is concerned about the state of free speech in the United States, where it is frowned upon by the younger generation, who associate it with something that offends them, she said she was extremely alarmed by the beheading of Samuel Paty in France. It is an illustration of the anger and extremism that inhabits this debate, she said. But it is also a mistake to blame all Muslims.

Whether in France or the United States, it is not possible to lock these issues, religious, racial or otherwise, in a box forever. They concern important parts of the population, especially young people who will play a role in media, politics and professional circles tomorrow. We must learn to give them a voice without compromising the liberal principles that govern the exchange of ideas.

Read the original here:
A Festival takes on the complicated topic of Freedom of Speech in the U.S. and France - Frenchly

In a March 21, 2021 column (One of the Most Significant Defenses of Free Speech in American History), Boston Globe writer Jeff Jacoby quoted the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.

Its a sad, tragic, and shocking commentary on what some parents and many schools are teaching these days that Douglasss statement might not meet with majority approval in America. Recent polls indicate that more than half of the American public believe that the First Amendment (which guarantees free speech) is outdated and ought to be rewritten. Support for what is traditionally regarded as freedom of speech is lowest among millennials.

Political correctness, cancel culture, and presentism are erasing past events and people. Intimidation is all too frequent on campuses and in the public square. Heather Higgins, CEO of Independent Womens Voice, says:

Today, many Americans are afraid to express their beliefs out of fear of retaliation or being canceled. What is happening right now isnt about suppressing hate speech. Itsabout suppressing history, facts, and viewpoints that some self-appointed woke arbiters who are looking to be offended have decreed are damaging and hateful. Thats a recipe for a society defined by fear, division, mistrust, intolerance, discrimination, and ultimately violence.

If the rush to shout people down and shut them up doesnt alarm you, then youre no friend of freedom. When speech dies, other freedoms follow. For that reason, we must push back against anti-free speech barbarians. We must make it unmistakably plain that we will not be silenced, nor will we allow others to be silenced, for the sake of anybodys pet project or political agenda.

Here is a selection of poignant remarks on behalf of freedom of speech. I hope it stiffens the spines of all who love freedom and who understand that speech is its first line of defense.

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - John Milton, in Areopagitica

"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter ones thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech." - Frederick Douglass,in his Plea for Free Speech in Boston

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, in his original preface toAnimal Farm

"Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may present his views without penalty, there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population." - Albert Einstein,in Ideas and Opinions

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington, to Officers of the Army

"Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme,' not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." - John Stuart Mill,in On Liberty

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." - Justice William O. Douglas, in The One Un-American Act

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know. This sacred privilege is essential to free governments, that the security of property, and the freedom of speech always go together; and in those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." -John TrenchardandThomas GordoninCatos Letters

Go here to see the original:
Historic Figures Who Recognized That Speech Is Freedom's First Line of Defense | Lawrence W. Reed - Foundation for Economic Education

Published: 4/12/2021 4:08:21 PM

A recent My Turn essay (Sixty Days, March 31) led me to think about the responsibilities of a local newspaper to assure that it does not give a platform to disinformation and a call for violence.

A commitment to the principal of free speech might suggest a very high bar for imposing limits on what ideas may be expressed, especially in a section of the paper dedicated to airing opinions. It might also be argued that if a viewpoint is held by a number of others in the community, beyond the author of a given piece, then it should not be subject to censure. Ill take these arguments in turn.

The Constitutions First Amendment enshrines free speech rights along with religious liberty: 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.

It is essential to note that this prohibits the government from limiting speech; it does not restrict the right of private companies from restricting speech unless by doing so they violate other established rights. This is why Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies were free to block the former presidents accounts without fear of being legally liable for doing so.

The Greenfield Recorder may refuse to publish whatever it sees to be counter to the principles of its business. In fact, the editor must routinely make precisely these decisions. There is simply no free speech argument restricting the Recorders decisions about publishing a particular opinion piece, any more than any such claim would force it to cover events it doesnt deem newsworthy.

The second argument is even more easily refuted. While it may be worthwhile and important to report on the prevalence of a particular viewpoint in the local community for example, in an article assessing support for a candidate or governmental policy it is certainly not the responsibility of a newspaper to provide that viewpoint with a platform, especially when it is founded on thoroughly debunked claims and promotes a military takeover of the United States government. Imagine a QAnon believer writing an essay that perpetuates the absurd claim that Democrats are cannibalistic child traffickers. Would the Recorder feel compelled to publish it even if there were others in the area who subscribed to the idea? Of course not.

Where does this leave us? Perhaps the editor has another reason to want the conspiracy theories and seditious ideas expressed in the piece propounded. Perhaps the editor simply wants to sell more subscriptions with controversy. Either way, it was a profound error to publish the essay and to refuse a reasonable request for the online version of the paper to carry a simple disclaimer. What the Recorder owes its readers is better judgment.

Read more here:
My Turn: What does a paper owe its readers? - The Recorder

A few weeks back, in Meriwether v. Hartop, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a broad First Amendment ruling in the area of so-called academic freedom enjoyed by university teachers. The case involves a philosophy professor (Nicholas Meriwether) who was punished by the public university he works for (Shawnee State University in Ohio, or University) for failing to comply with a University policy requiring teachers to address students by the students preferred pronouns. More specifically, Meriwether, a devout Christian who had a practice of using formal titles (Mr. or Ms.) in class when leading Socratic discussions to foster[] an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect, objected to having to use feminine titles and pronouns in addressing and referring to a student (described in the opinion merely as Doe) whom Meriwether described as someone no one . . . would have assumed . . . was female based on . . . outward appearances. . . In response to complaints by the student, the University, after various back-and-forths with Meriwether, formally reprimanded him for failure to comply with the salutation policy, and warned that future violations would bring further corrective actions that could include pay reductions and termination. En route to the written reprimand, the University rejected at least two resolutions Meriwether proposed: (1) that Meriwether refer to Doe simply by her last name (even though, presumably, Meriwether would continue to use Mr. and Ms. in conversing with all other students); and (2) that Meriwether comply with the schools policy and use students preferred pronouns but add a disclaimer in his syllabus noting that he was doing so under compulsion and setting forth his personal and religious beliefs about gender identity.

After a faculty union grievance process (the faculty at Shawnee State apparently is unionized) did not bring him satisfaction, Meriwether filed suit in federal court bring claims under: (1) the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment; (2) the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) the Ohio Constitution; and (4) his contract with the University.

The federal district court dismissed all of Meriwethers federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to the First Amendment causes of action, holding that Meriwether had stated a valid claim under both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. In resolving the Free Speech issue (the only one we have space to address in this column), the Sixth Circuit panel held that although Meriwether is a public employee, the framework the Supreme Court has erected to govern, as a general matter, free-speech claims by government employees, spelled out 15 years ago in Garcetti v. Ceballos, does not apply because the Court in Garcetti explicitly declined to decide whether its framework should be used for speech related to scholarship or teaching. Instead, said the Sixth Circuit, older cases from the 1950s and 1960s, involving the imposition of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths on all public employees, including public educators, spoke grandly about the importance of preserving academic freedom for people who teach and write in American universities, and thus suggest that the Garcetti framework (under which the category of on-the-job speech by public employees, in which Meriwethers teaching would fall, would ordinarily receive little First Amendment protection) ought not be used in this setting.

Instead, the court applied the pre-Garcetti case of Pickering v. Board of Education, under which even on-the-job speech by public employees is protected if it involves a matter of public concern, unless the speech would impair a sufficiently strong interest the public employer has in the operation of the public entity in question. In ruling for Meriwether, the court, in grand fashion, observed:

Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.

In our view, this was an unfortunate ruling in two important respects: it may have reached the wrong outcome on the facts, and in doing so it made some unnecessary and arguably questionable law on a big decisionthe extent to which Garcetti should or should not apply to the public higher education setting.

As to the first question (the correctness of the ruling on its facts), we believe the Sixth Circuit erred for several reasons. For starters, even under the Pickering balancing test the court purported to apply (which protects public employee speech more than does the Garcetti framework), the University should have prevailed. The Sixth Circuit rejected as insufficient the Universitys argument that its policy helped it steer clear of a hostile learning environment that might itself violate federal law. But whether or not respecting students preferred pronouns is itself required by federal anti-discrimination law, isnt it obvious that a university has a strong interest in promoting a sense of equal treatment and dignity among its students so that the learning environment in the classroom liberates students to focus on the content at hand without having to simultaneously process difficult feelings of exclusion or disrespect? And if that interest is important, one can see how Professor Meriwethers proposed compromisesof using the last name only for Ms. Doe but using Mr. and Ms. for everyone else (thus singling Ms. Doe out for different treatment in a way the whole class sees and hears), or of noting his objection to the universitys pronoun-use policy in the syllabus that students like Ms. Doe must look at every class day of the semesterdo not address the problem. Indeed, if the Sixth Circuit were correct, would a faculty member have a First Amendment right to refer to women students by their first names and men by using Mr. [last name]? Or calling Blacks by their first name but Whites by Mr. or Ms [last name]? Certainly providing equal salutation treatment without regard to race or gender identification no doubt constitutes an important pedagogical interest as to which universities are entitled to significant deference. (It might be a more difficult question if the University had punished Meriwether for his private social media posts in which he railed against the policys unwisdom, since that would be one step removed from the classroom learning environment itself.)

Moreover, it is far from clear that a salutationthe way that students are addressed or called on in class or elsewhereitself constitutes the kind of distinctive academic-speech activity that may ever justify significant First Amendment protection at all when undertaken by a public employee, regardless of the applicable doctrinal framework. Certainly and importantly, the Sixth Circuit never explained what is distinctive about salutations at a university that implicates the development of new knowledge or intellectual debates. Salutations are generic and are utilized throughout public institutions, including K-12 public schools, courtrooms, and the myriad situations where public employees address their clients or the general public. In all these circumstances, government would have substantial discretion in regulating the scope and form of salutations, without regard to an employees conscientious reluctance to abide by the states requirements. Special constitutional protection for academics engaged in activities that are functionally indistinguishable from the conduct of all other public employees and which bear no relationship to the reasons why academic freedom and freedom of speech at public universities might merit unique free speech treatment requires more of an explanation and defense than the courts opinion provided.

Another way to put the point is this: Meriwethers objection to following the schools salutation policy was based on its conflict with his personal politics, not a conflict with the content or viewpoint of the class he was trying to teach. Indeed, if he were trying to make a pedagogical point about philosophy (his field) by using the way he addressed students as an example or illustration of a particular philosophical viewpoint, important questions would be raised about whether it is appropriate to enlist students as props, or unwilling performance artists, for professorial demonstrations. (Certainly in med school, for example, a professor could be prohibited from incorporating his unwilling students as subjects of experiments he were trying to demonstrate to the class.)

Pulling back the lens, as a general matter it may not make sense to construe salutations to be pure, content-based speech rather than essentially conduct-infused interactions in which speech plays the same relevant but non-substantive role that speech acts do in so many social interactions. When a teacher takes attendance to determine which students are present in the classroom, that seems more like a mechanical exercise than the expression of substantive content germane to the course curriculum. Similarly, when a teacher calls on students who raise their hand to speak, this avoids the conundrum of too many students trying to speak at the same time, but this practice itself contributes little if anything to the substantive subject matter of the course.

We recognize that there is an expressive dimension to salutations, but that is hardly dispositive. The question is whether the salutation is in essence a form of interaction that allows decisionmakers to identify and distinguish one person from another (a rather mechanical goal) rather than convey a substantive, much less viewpoint-based, message. Putting Garcetti aside, when the DMV finally calls your name to come forward to renew your drivers license, would we remotely think the salutation there is protected speech for First Amendment purposes?

Finally and relatedlyand this may be among the most difficult question raised by this case and not addressed by the Sixth Circuithow do we differentiate speech from identity discrimination for constitutional purposes? As suggested above, if a professor calls on White male students by addressing them as Mr. followed by their last names and calls on Black men and all female students using only their first names, the university would be permitted to punish that practice. One could argue that the universitys rules do impinge upon the professors freedom of speech and academic freedom liberties but that this infringement is justified by the public universitys strong state interest in prohibiting race and gender discrimination. (As noted above, if this is the right way to analyze the problem under a Pickering balancing framework, the Sixth Circuit gave no reason why the universitys interest shouldnt prevail in the present case as well.)

But there is an alternative way to understand this conflict, that neednt even require resort to compelling university interests. It is often the case that distinctions drawn between protected classes, even if expressive in nature, are construed to be discriminatory conduct that does not implicate free speech guarantees at all. For example, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of religion. It does not prohibit employment discrimination based on secular belief systems. From a speech perspective, this statutory scheme constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The Court has repeatedly held, after all, that religion is a viewpoint of speech. But no one argues that Title VII abridges freedom of speech in this way. For the purposes of this civil rights statute, religion is understood to constitute an identity (protected against discrimination) not a subject or viewpoint of speech.

The same analysis could apply to the terms used to address a student. To the extent that ignoring students professed genders when calling on them in defiance of university regulations is construed to be a form of identity discrimination, that determination could displace free speech review of the universitys requirementsjust as prohibiting discrimination against students on the basis of their religion when calling on them could be understood as legitimate enforcement of civil rights principles rather than an abridgment of the professors freedom of speech.

For these reasons, we think the court should have ruled for the University in any event. And if it had seen things this way, it would have had no occasion to address the big and vexing question whether the government-protective Garcetti framework applies in the education setting. There are certainly arguments cutting both ways on this. In Garcetti, the Court ruled that as long as public employees [are] mak[ing] statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline, even if the matters on which they are speaking are of public concern. To be sure, applying Garcetti to all academic settings would have pronounced effects in that no public educators would be protected by First Amendment academic freedom with regard to on-the-job speech. And deciding what is on-the-job speech is not always easy. The scope of what constitutes employee, as opposed to citizen, speech can be unclear. With regard to K12 instructors, perhaps all of a teachers statements during class can be viewed as part of the job, but what of conversations with students out of class, during lunch period, or before the school day formally begins? More problematically, how do we determine the job parameters of university professors who are often expectedas part of the scholarship and service components of their jobto speak to government, the press, professional associations, and other audiences, and to publish articles and books for diverse dissemination?

Yet if Garcetti doesnt apply, where does special First Amendment protection for public professors come from? Just as the Press Clause of the First Amendment has never been construed to give the institutional media special speech protections (and that is a good thing since the very idea of the institutional media has broken down due to the internet), so too it might be problematic to try to define and confer special protection on professors. (What about independent scholars at think tanks, and conspiracy theorists who purport to do scholarly research?)

The Sixth Circuit leaned a lot on cases from public educational institutions in which the Court rejected anti-subversive laws from two generations ago. But these cases should not be overread. The Government in these cases lost (and should have lost) because it failed to make any specific showings of disruption to government operations that the laws were addressing; instead, it was arguing that all civil service should be free of anyone who holds dangerous beliefsnot that a particular persons belief, because of his or her particular job, was in fact or in all predictive likelihood going to interfere with government operations. Even the Garcetti framework and the leeway it affords government to regulate speech qua employee does not necessarily permit the government to use its employer status to silence discourse, not because it [has any effect on] public functions but simply because superiors [in the government department or office] disagree with the content of employees speechprecisely what government was trying to do during the early Cold War. So with or without application of Garcetti, those cases would have come out the way they did, and thus they dont really offer much clear support for an academic freedom exception to generic First Amendment doctrine.

Finally, we note another way in which the federal courts in this case perhaps needlessly waded into this thicket. The district court declined to address Meriwethers claims under the Ohio constitution or his contract with the University. We recognize that federal courts may not feel they are the best institutions to forge new state-law paths. But federal courts can make use of devices like certification of questions of law to state supreme courts. And in many respects these non-First-Amendment sources of lawespecially state-law definitions of tenure and the likemay be better and more durable fonts of academic freedom protections than First Amendment doctrine. If public universities want to recruit and retain top-flight academics, they will likely have to promise certain expressive leeway (something implicit in the Sixth Circuits reference to the tradition of intellectual diversity and freedom in American higher education) and should be held to their promises. But if other public educational institutions choose not to make such promises, it is not clear that federal courts should be fashioning First Amendment law to force them to so do. Finally, judges need remember that rules empowering faculty members against administration rules can cut both ways. If more progressive administrations cant rein in more conservative faculty practices, neither can conservative legislatures and boards of governors rein in more progressive professors.

See the rest here:
Analyzing the Recent Sixth Circuits Extension of Academic Freedom Protection to a College - Justia Verdict

In 2018 a Scottish comedian was convicted of a hate crime after filming his girlfriends pug performing the Nazi salute and putting it on YouTube.

In Canada recently, a man was reportedly jailed for contempt of court for refusing to stop talking about his sons gender transition and referring to him as she and her.

Now I need to say that I do not endorse misgendering people or teaching dogs to do Nazi salutes but getting the government involved in this is a road to madness.

But buckle up, because it looks like at least one Australian state might be about to hit the highway.

A new report from the Victorian Parliaments Legal and Social Issues Committees inquiry into anti-vilification laws has been released. It has a range of recommendations that, if made into law, will weaponise the authoritarian Karens. No longer will they just want to speak to your manager, they will take you to court.

Ominously, neither of the two Liberal Party members on the committee argued against the recommendations in a minority report. And now the Government is trying to sell it to the Victorian public with talk about banning the display of swastikas.

(On this point, swastikas are not banned in Israel.They take the approach that anyone who is ugly and stupid enough to identify which such symbols of hate should be allowed to expose their true nature for everyone to see.)

But the swastika issue is only one dot point in the report. These proposals are far-reaching restrictions on our freedom of speech that would divide this state into races, genders, the abled and disabled, the woke and the non-woke, the dobbers and the dobbed upon.

Soon enough, our public servants will become quasi-police, and Victorias courts will be full of people complaining about what they overheard someone say on the bus or read on Twitter.

Our prisons could fill up with young men who said the wrong thing at the footy and refuse to apologise.

Like much of the rest of the world, Victorian law stops people from threatening or inciting others to threaten physical harm to another person because of their race or religion.

Threats of violence are beyond the pale so this is how it should be.

But these recommendations would seriously lower the threshold. Under the proposal, bureaucrats and judges would only need to be satisfied that a person recklessly engages in conduct that is likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a person based on whether they possess or associate with someone who possesses a protected attribute.

The list of attributes would expand to include race, religion, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, intersex status, disability, and HIV/AIDS status.

If this legislation came to pass, it would only be a matter of time before the list lengthened to who knows what? The short, the bald, the ginger all of them with a list of petty grievances to take to Woke Court.

Such a system will strongly favour the middle class and those with the resources to pay for lawyers.

What a nightmare.

But if the left side of politics think this might not impact them, maybe they need to have another think.

They could wind up in Woke Court for displaying the hammer and sickle that equally sickening symbol behind the deaths of millions. A future conservative government could easily turn this into law.

And would it still be okay to wear a t-shirt bearing the likeness of the notorious racist and homophobe, Che Guevara?

People of the left could equally find themselves in trouble for supporting socialism.

Where would it end? If this kind of law passes, I can guarantee that the list of prohibited symbols and protected people will grow.

People on each side seem to think only those with opinions they disagree with should be censored. It always comes as a shock that these rules might also apply to them.

And, meanwhile, it will make little or no difference to political extremists who will find new symbols, meet in secret and become harder to identify.

Where extremists are currently moderated by public opinion, soon they will lurk in the shadows. Some will recognise this as their chance to become a hero. They may choose to go to court, create gofundme pages, make speeches on courthouse steps, and some may become political prisoners.

Its a recipe for social chaos and division with identity politics turning us into warring tribes.

Free speech is fundamental in a democratic society. The Government has no place policing our private conversations. They should butt out before we become the laughing stock of the nation.

David Limbrick is the Liberal Democrats MP for Victorias South East Metropolitan region.

Read the rest here:
Does Daniel Andrews have new bars on free speech coming? - The Spectator Australia

I have never been a big fan of Piers Morgan, but I dont understand why he was forced to quit his show.

Piers Morgan recently criticized Prince Harry and Meghan Markles interview with Oprah Winfrey. In response to Morgans comments, more than 41,000 complaints were filed against Morgan to the Office of Communications (Ofcom).

Its pretty ludicrous that talk show hosts cannot express their opinions in a free society. Personally, I think Morgans comments were very negative toward Markle. Morgan was friends with her briefly and doesnt trust her.

That said, commentators should not be fired for criticizing a public figure, even if some of that criticism arose from a personal dislike.

If people dont like what a pundit is saying, they can change the channel. Any government agency that can punish members of the media for their opinions will ultimately protect the powerful and entrenched at the expense of everyone else.

One of the greatest British journalists of the 20th century was Garreth Jones. In the 1930s, Jones was the first to report about a manmade famine that killed almost 10 million people in the former Soviet Union. Most of the casualties were in the Ukraine, where the 1932-33 famine is known as Holodomor.

Other journalists based in Moscow refused to write any story that was critical of the Soviet government.

One such journalist, Walter Duranty, who was based in Moscow for the New York Times, decided to deliberately lie about Jones.

Duranty wrote an article accusing Jones of writing a big scare story.

In the same article, Duranty wrote: In short, conditions are definitely bad in certain sections the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga. The rest of the country is on short rations but nothing worse. These conditions are bad, but there is no famine.

While Durantys brand of journalism resulted in him having a nice apartment, a mistress and international prestige, Jones was condemned as a liar.

In 1935, Jones was murdered under mysterious circumstances.

While reporting in Japanese-occupied Manchuria as a foreign correspondent, Jones and a German journalist were captured by a group of thieves. They demanded a ransom. The German journalist was released while Jones was killed.

While the level of Soviet involvement in Jones death is unclear, further investigation indicated that a Chinese contact for Jones and his German colleague loaned them a car to drive into Mongolia.

This Chinese contact is now believed to have been a Soviet NKVD agent.

Jones chose to tell the truth while Duranty publicly attacked Jones character and his reporting.

If we dont oppose the idea of journalists cozying up to powerful people, some of these journalists will eventually give in to the temptation of preserving their status at the expense of exposing the truth.

If Ofcom can take down a journalist as powerful as Morgan, other journalists will fall in line with what the UK government wants.

That is what happened with Duranty in the Soviet Union. There must be zero tolerance for this dangerous dynamic.

In 1990 and 2003, the survivors of the manmade famine and their descendants fought two unsuccessful campaigns to force the Pulitzer Board to revoke Durantys Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times refused to support either campaign.

In 2003, the Pulitzer Prize Board claimed that no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deceptionwas found in Durantys reporting from 1931. If only it were so.

The New York Times conceded two very important points in 2003 in an official statement regarding Duranty.

First, they pointed out that Durantys cabled dispatches had to pass Soviet censorship, and Stalins propaganda machine was powerful and omnipresent.

In other words, Duranty had to comply with Soviet censorship at all times.

The second concession in that official statement was even more chilling: Since the 1980s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

In other words, for decades the New York Times refused to publicly acknowledge Durantys duplicity in the 1930s.

It was only after the publication of Robert Conquests book Harvest of Sorrow in 1986 that the truth could no longer be denied. Although the New York Times has criticized Durantys articles, the paper still refuses to join the campaign to revoke Durantys Pulitzer Prize. For instance, as late as October 2017, Bret Stephens wrote a review in his column about Anne Applebaums book about the Holodomor.

Stephens notes that Durantys coverage of the Soviet Union was extremely misleading, but his column does not suggest that his Pulitzer be revoked.

Stephens then ponders: How many readers, I wonder, are familiar with this history of atrocity and denial, except in a vague way?

For understandable reasons, he chose not to consider the possibility that maybe the reason people know so little about this famine, or the cover-up, is because of Durantys articles in the New York Times denying its very existence.

In her book Red Famine, Anne Applebaum points out that Duranty was not the only one to engage in this deception. Applebaum quoted William Henry Chamberlin, who was correspondent in Moscow for the Christian Science Monitor. Chamberlin explained that any journalist whose articles did not comply with Moscows wishes works under a Sword of Damoclesthe threat of expulsion from the country or of the refusal of permission to re-enter it, which of course amounts to the same thing.

Applebaum also quoted Eugene Lyons, who was the United Press (now United Press International) correspondent in Moscow from 1928-1934:

The truth is that we did not seek corroboration for the simple reason that we entertained no doubts on the subject. There are facts too large to require eyewitness confirmationThere was no more need for investigation to establish the mere existence of the Russian famine than investigation to establish the existence of the American depression. Inside Russia the matter was not disputed.

It is time for the New York Times to demand that Durantys Pulitzer Prize be revoked. Jones and millions of Ukrainians died while Duranty and other journalists benefited from this lie.

While I doubt media censorship in Britain or the United States will ever reach Soviet levels, recent journalistic trends in both countries are highly troubling.

Whether it is the overreaching of Ofcom, or the willful lack of objectivity and accuracy that has become so common in American newsrooms, we must fight for freedom of speech at every opportunity.

Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer whose work focuses on foreign affairs, national security and presidential history. He has been published in numerous outlets, including The American Spectator, the Washington Times, and The American Conservative. When hes not writing, Robert works for a medical research company in New York. Read Robert Zapesochnys Reports More Here.

2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Go here to see the original:
Lessons on Free Speech from the Soviet Union - kvor

Few in academia will profess ignorance of no-platforming. This expression of ideological zealotry seeks to restrict debate to orthodoxies with which its supporters sympathise. It restricts freedom of speech upon which, since the Enlightenment, democrats have relied to test ideas and challenge assumptions.

It is a new way of describing the old sin of censorship which, in the UK, has more often been deployed in the interests of reaction than progress. Neville Chamberlain, Britains Conservative prime minister between May 1937 and May 1940, deployed it systematically and sometimes maliciously in his efforts to appease Hitler.

From the moment Chamberlain entered Downing Street he worked to make the press support his policy of appeasing the dictators. In his book Twilight of Truth: Chamberlain, Appeasement and Manipulation of the Press, Richard Cockett describes how this ideologically committed appeaser curbed the hostility of British newspapers towards Nazi Germany and converted most of them to his cause.

Chamberlain tamed parliamentary lobby journalists through his dedicated press officer, George Steward. Sir Joseph Ball, the chairman of the Conservative Research Department between 1930 and 1939, helped to cajole newspapers into supporting and promoting the prime ministers approach.

Read more: How Neville Chamberlain's adviser took spinning for the PM to new and dangerous levels

Chamberlain himself maintained close friendships with Geoffrey Dawson, editor of the supremely influential Times, and also with the owners of the Sunday Times, Daily Sketch and Observer. Steward and Ball helped with the mass-market Daily Mail, Daily Express, News Chronicle and Daily Express.

To Chamberlains fury, there was one Conservative broadsheet that steadfastly refused to toe the line: the Yorkshire Post. This proud regional broadsheet was not simply aligned with the Conservative interest. It was published by the Yorkshire Conservative Newspaper Company and run to support the political and financial needs of Yorkshire Conservatives. Nevertheless, Arthur Mann, its editor between 1919 and 1939, performed with genius the role of a truly sovereign newspaper editor.

Mann believed fervently in fourth estate theory: his newspaper had a role to play in political society. It must act as a link between public opinion and government. Mann considered it his duty to follow the evidence offered by his reporters, correspondents and columnists.

These included Charles Tower, the papers chief leader writer previously a correspondent in Germany. In Vienna they had LR Murray, who had met eyewitnesses to Hitlers intolerant belligerence. John Dundas, a recent graduate of Christ Church College, Oxford, who had just completed his studies in Heidelberg, wrote on foreign policy.

His team gave Mann insight. Independence of mind and faith in journalisms duty to democracy compelled him to advance arguments that infuriated his proprietors and many readers.

Wealthier newspapers with larger readerships bowed the knee to Chamberlain and depicted appeasement as the only realistic option. They portrayed the prime minister as the statesman who would make it work. Mann demurred assertively.

The prime minister and Rupert Beckett, then the chairman of the Yorkshire Conservative Newspaper Association, encouraged Mann to keep his opinions out of his newspaper and support the government. Instead, when the pair met briefly on the morning of March 21 1938, the editor encouraged the prime minister to be robust in his dealings with Hitler. Chamberlains response was exquisitely rude. He declined Manns advice and exited the room declaring Im afraid I have an appointment at 11.15 and it is now 11.14.

Six months before appeasements nadir at the Munich Conference, a Yorkshire Post editorial accused British ministers of harbouring delusions about Nazi Germany.

Noting that some of the worst Jew-baiters in Germany were even then arriving in Austria, Mann deployed the Yorkshire Posts leader column to express his fear that the British cabinet contained men who were temperamentally unfitted to grasp the realities of the international problem and still less qualified firmly to deal with them.

As German demands intensified in July 1938, and Hitler reserved the right to treat Czechoslovakia as a thorn in the side of Germany which the Reich, accordingly, has a right in self-defence to rip out and destroy, the Yorkshire Post insisted that appeasement was futile. Following the Anglo-French betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in September, the Yorkshire Post described appeasement as indistinguishable from a surrender to threats. Its architects had a tragic lack of conviction.

Now under intense pressure from his proprietors and accused of endangering the nation and misleading the public, Mann pressed on. An editorial headlined: Encouragement of Aggression appeared in the Yorkshire Post on December 8 1938. This condemned Chamberlains foreign policy: by surrendering to force, the prime minister had repeatedly encouraged aggression.

A prime minister who was by nature unfitted to deal with Dictators had ignored advice from experts qualified to advise him. His policy was threatening the safety of the realm. It was likely in the near future to threaten it with danger still greater.

Newspapers rarely flatter their rivals, but the liberal Manchester Guardian, which agreed with Mann in his stance on appeasement, captured the courage and wisdom of Manns Yorkshire Post. It described soundness of judgement, tenacity of purpose, loyalty to principle and the courage to be unpopular and even to offend the Party if the Party were not right. High praise, but no less than Mann deserved.

He was an heroic editor and a beacon of excellence in journalism. As debates around freedom of speech animate Britains universities, we should celebrate the value of dissenting opinions and the courage of those who refuse to be silenced.

Here is the original post:
When Neville Chamberlain tried to 'no-platform' the Yorkshire Post - The Conversation UK