Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Iveta Cherneva, human rights author and analyst; finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech in 2020

The recent ruling by a Russian court in Moscow to revoke the license of Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, is a punch in the face of freedom of speech. Globally, not just in Russia.

Novaya Gazeta'seditor-in-chief, Dmitry Muratov, whorecently won the Nobel Peace Prize, claims that the court's decision has no legal basis.

The Russian authorities are accusing the newspaper of being a foreign agent. Foreign asset or spy is a usual angle that governments around the world often take in order to discredit and eliminate media or human rights organizations. In this case, the Russian authorities' argument is that the newspaper has failed to comply with the Russian laws applying to foreign agents, without the paper actually being a foreign agent.

Aggressively going after media and critical voices in a society brings about the proverbial "chilling effect", which silences and scares the exersize of free speech. That's observed not only in Russia.

Russia's "foreign agent" laws have a chilling effect on the exercize of free speech in Russia, but also beyond. They deprive of the truth people globally, especially in light of Novaya Gazeta's reporting of Russia's war on Ukraine which is a topic of global interest.

The Russian court's judgment, in a series of increased government pressure on Russian media, is an illustration of the attack on mediafreedom and independence by Russian President Vladimir Putin. This goes all the way up. Actions by the Russian authorities of this kind make the job of journalists impossible literally. Novaya Gazeta has now been banned from publishing in Russia. That should worry not only Russians but also people all over the world who care about media freedom and freedom of speech, and who care about those who inform and bring the truth.

/Iveta Cherneva

Follow Novinite.com on Twitter and Facebook

Write to us at editors@novinite.com

- Novinite.bg

See the original post:
Russian Court's Ban of Newspaper Novaya Gazeta is a Punch in the Face of Freedom of Speech - Novinite.com

In a recent article in which he expressed support for the right to freedom of expression of Salman Rushdie and other writers, noted Bangladeshi journalist Rifat Munim narrated how there was "total silence" in Bangladeshi newspapers and magazines regarding the August 12, 2022 attack on the author of The Satanic Verses.

Rifat Munim noted that despite how several Bangladeshi writers had been killed in similar attacks or forced to go into exile in fear for their lives, the courts took years to deliver a verdict in the relevant cases. "My country's abysmal track record of protecting writers and publishers from similar attacks in the past has pushed us down a slippery slope, where writers and journalists live in an atmosphere of fear and choose to self-censor rather than speak their minds," he added.

Rifat Munim is an editor, journalist, translator, and essayist based in Dhaka. He was the literary editor of Dhaka Tribute, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper. His article titled "Salman Rushdie: No Criticism Strips The Writer Of The Right To Free Expression" appeared in a special issue of Outlook, a weekly magazine published from New Delhi.

Rifat Munim (image courtesy: AddaStories.org)

Following are excerpts from the article:[1]

"Writing About This Attack While Living In Bangladesh Puts One In A Rather Difficult Position"; "There Is An Ambience Of Total Silence Over The Despicable Attack On Salman Rushdie In The Bangladeshi Media"

"Writing about this attack [on Salman Rushdie] while living in Bangladesh puts one in a rather difficult position. My country's abysmal track record of protecting writers and publishers from similar attacks in the past has pushed us down a slippery slope, where writers and journalists live in an atmosphere of fear and choose to self-censor rather than speak their minds.

"That's precisely why there is an ambience of total silence over the despicable attack on Salman Rushdie in the Bangladeshi media. Only news items were published on the front or back pages immediately after the attack. Rushdie then vanished from print editions altogether, and was sent to the section marked 'international' or 'world' in online editions. Only one English daily carried an op-ed on the subject and that piece, a reprint of a Conversation UK article, is written by a UK-based, non-Bangladeshi literary researcher.

"Taslima Nasrin was forced out of the country in 1994 upon publication of her third novel, Lajja (Shame). She has since lived in exile.

"Prolific writer Humayun Azad was brutally attacked in 2003 by members of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh [JMB] after he published his novel [with a title denoting Pakistan's national anthem], Pak Saar Jamin Saad Bad, which was an allegorical depiction of how Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the main parties in the [right-wing] BNP-led coalition then in power, had collaborated with Pakistan's occupation army in killing Hindus and freedom fighters in 1971. He died the next year. The verdict on the Azad murder case was delivered by a Dhaka court in April this year, 18 long years after the attack.

"Therefore, on the one hand, threats of militant attacks are very much alive and kicking, and on the other, there is fear of legal repercussions. Because, due to the enactment of the Digital Security Act, if anybody feels that their religious feeling is hurt over any article or item published online, no matter how absurd that feeling might be, they can file a case against the writer or the newspaper editor.

"Faced with such a fear-mongering climate, when you sit down to write an article unequivocally condemning the attack on Rushdie and the ideology that birthed the attacker, you ask yourself: in this situation, what's the limit of the thinkable for someone living in Bangladesh, especially when talking about Rushdie vis--vis The Satanic Verses, which appears even more incendiary today than it was 30 years ago?

"No matter how much the space for debate has shrunk, we owe it to every writer who has ever been attacked for their words whether in the U.S. or Russia or China or India or Bangladesh that we continue their fight by giving robust expressions to our own thoughts. More so for Rushdie, who is the meteor in our imagination, having touched so many lives and jolted so many readers into questioning their perceptions."

"When The Awami League... Came To Power In 1996, This Atmosphere Of Openness Was Given A Further Boost And Our Debates Would Also Include Books By Ahmed Sharif And Aroj Ali Matubbor, Both Of Whom Question Islam, Christianity, And Hinduism From Scientific And Humanist Viewpoints"

"In the early 1990s, when I was stepping into my early teens, my hometown Bagerhat scarcely had any reader of a classic English novel in its original format, let alone a contemporary novel as complex as [The Satanic] Verses. A large body of Russian, North American, French and English novels had a considerable readership, but all those books were read in Bengali translations. Yet, the mainstream Bangla dailies conveyed to us news of violent protests over the book and of course, the fatwa [by Ayatollah Khomeini], thus taking the waves of the Rushdie debate to the country's south-western corner. As the book was banned immediately in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, our interest in it naturally grew.

"The leftist circles that I had started hanging out with comprised of youths who spoke for Rushdie's right to exercise critical thinking. Unlike today's Bangladesh, the leftist student parties had considerable sway over students back then. One reason was that the 1990 mass movement, which had brought down General H.M. Ershad's nine-year-long autocratic rule, was jointly engineered by student fronts of all major political parties, barring the religiously oriented ones.

"The spirit of the movement created an atmosphere for critical thinking and ideas to grow and flow among the youth. After Ershad's fall, the BNP [Bangladesh Nationalist Party], the party sympathetic to majoritarian religious narratives, came to power. It banned Taslima's Lajja in 1993 and Azad's feminist essay collection Nari in 1995. Yet, members of its student front in Bagerhat, who had rented a two-room office in my neighborhood, would hang out with activists from their own party as well as those from the leftist parties and the Chhatra League, the student front of the BNP's arch rival, the Bangladesh Awami League.

"Having weaned off fairy tales and children's thrillers, I was reading, on the one hand, detective thrillers and abridged Bengali translations of European classics (published by Sheba Prakashani), and on the other, all those Bengali translations under the rubric of 'Marxism' published by Russia-affiliated Pragati Prakashani. I was always around the BNP office or tea stalls adjacent to it, so that I could share my ideas or perhaps get new perspectives from seniors, many of whom were avid readers and not politically active any more.

"Verses, Lajja and Nari were at the center of many long discussions. There also were talks on Syed Shamsul Haq's Khelaram Khele Ja and Azad's Sob Kichu Bhenge Pore, both of which rather openly deal with issues of sexuality, including graphic description of sexual encounters between men and women. When the Awami League, the party that promoted the spirit of the 1971 Liberation War and non-communalism, came to power in 1996, this atmosphere of openness was given a further boost and our debates would also include books by Ahmed Sharif and Aroj Ali Matubbor, both of whom question Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism from scientific and humanist viewpoints."

"Maybe It Was Due To My Upbringing And The Cultural Climate I Was Exposed To, But I Could Never, And Still Don't, See Any Problem With A Writer Raising Questions About Any Aspect Of A Religion..."

"The most interesting bit about those days was that back then, I could talk about a lot of subjects from science to religion and sex with friends and seniors, irrespective of their ideological leanings. True, I faced vehement opposition in many cases, but that only led to more impassioned arguments. The leftist circles are there, though to a much lesser extent. The friends and seniors with whom I had those debates are also there, but the cultural licence to initiate such debates seems to have expired long ago.

"By the time I laid my hands on The Satanic Verses, toward the late-2010s, I had already read Rushdie's essay collection Imaginary Homelands and his second novel, Midnight's Children. I had not expected the world's most famous English-language author to write such fine literary criticism. His critical perspective in every piece is authentic and his language extremely lucid. His resistance to Western literary and artistic discourses impressed me the most. As for his magnum opus, Midnight's Children, it seemed like an explosion of creativity holding answers to all my questions about language, politics, history and storytelling in fiction.

"It defies modern European traditions, but combines history and myth, post-modernism and magic realism, to create an epic that has significantly broadened the horizons of fiction in general and South Asian fiction in particular. The 'chutnification' [i.e., pickling] of English also happens here, most remarkably. I especially noticed Adam Aziz's shift from a believer to a non-believer, and the way his son Salim Sinai, the protagonist, hears a voice calling to him, which Salim compares for a few fleeting moments to Prophet Muhammad hearing the voice of Allah.

"The taste of Children's 'chutnified' language made it easy to dive into Verses, in which the innovative use of language has been taken several notches higher. In the realm of ideas, what struck me first are questions surrounding atheism and parallels between our time and that of the 7th century, which had featured as seeds in Children and had grown up as enormous trees with airy roots in Verses.

"Maybe it was due to my upbringing and the cultural climate I was exposed to, but I could never, and still don't, see any problem with a writer raising questions about any aspect of a religion, as long as those questions are well-founded and nuanced, and not tainted by prejudices of any kind."

"Fitted In A Post-Modern Narrative, [The Satanic Verses Is] A Formidable Magic Realist Tale About Two Indian Men, Gibreel Farista, An Unsuccessful Indian Film Actor, And Saladin Chamcha"

"Fitted in a post-modern narrative, [The Satanic Verses is] a formidable magic realist tale about two Indian men, Gibreel Farista, an unsuccessful Indian film actor, and Saladin Chamcha. They jump from a hijacked plane and like meteors, land on the shores of England, where they embark upon many adventures (or misadventures). Farista, who hears voices in his head, is prone to dreaming elaborate dreams in which he imagines himself as the archangel Jibreel, and sees visions of 7th century Arab societies that relate directly or indirectly to Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

"These dream sequences, of which there are several the two most notable appearing in chapters titled 'Mahound' and 'Return to Jahilia' are the reason why he is accused of insulting Islam, not only by Muslims but also by some acclaimed writers, including John Le Carre, Roald Dahl, Zoe Heller, and Pankaj Mishra. But is there an authorial intention through which we can work out an illuminating interpretation of these dreams?

"Although Rushdie's unreliable narrator who is poking fun at everything, including his own comments, and is critical of every religion makes it difficult to work out any consistent authorial intent, plenty of clues are given in different chapters, especially in the one titled 'A City Visible But Unseen,' where Farista repeatedly expresses his wish to turn London, a city in transition, into something different.

"The wish derives from his disillusionment with London, of course, but also underlines the painful process of a migrant's transformation, which, among other things, reflects the migrant's experience of being Othered. That's why, in his sane or insane state of mind, subconsciously or unconsciously, he is looking for models of a transitional city in ancient Arabian societies to which his religious roots are attached. But that's just one interpretation."

"I Felt Rushdie's Portrayal Of Islam Lacks Originality And Blandly Echoes Prejudiced Westernised Notions Of Islam; His Materialism, Which I Found To Be Selective, Does Not Give Us The Whole Picture"

"Supported by Rushdie's own comments in his autobiography Joseph Anton I'm of the opinion that in addition to exploring themes of identity and transformation, he consciously presents readers with a materialist interpretation of the advent of Islam in Arabian societies. I'm also of the opinion that these dreams defy their assigned roles in the narrative and assume a character of their own, and this is also part of Rushdie's authorial intent.

"As I read and reread the dreams, I felt Rushdie's portrayal of Islam lacks originality and blandly echoes prejudiced Westernised notions of Islam. His materialism, which I found to be selective, does not give us the whole picture. He explores the perspectives of many characters, from renegade Salman to blasphemous poet Baal, but the only perspective that remains unexplored is that of the Prophet's.

"Nevertheless, Rushdie's portrayal is way more nuanced and clever than Azad's Shubhobroto O Tar Somporkito Shusamachar, in which Azad, much like the director of Innocence of Muslims (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Egypt), has depicted the Prophet as one whose passion lies in destroying temples.

"So I loved Farista and Chamcha's misadventures in London, but found the dream sequences to be blinkered. I found Azad's Shubhobroto and the short film Innocence to be driven by propaganda fed by Western discourses on Prophet Muhammad, which also find parallels in the Hindutva version of Islam and the Prophet."

"Even If I Dismissed Rushdie's Interpretation Of Islam, Like I Did Of Azad, So What? No Criticism Or Dismissal Can Strip Rushdie Or Azad Of Their Right To Express What They Think About Life, Politics And Religion No Criticism Justifies The Violent Reactions To Verses Or Its Author"

"Now, the question is: so what? Even if I dismissed Rushdie's interpretation of Islam, like I did of Azad, so what? No criticism or dismissal can strip Rushdie or Azad of their right to express what they think about life, politics, and religion. No criticism justifies the violent reactions to Verses or its author.

"In their violent outbursts, a vast majority of Muslims conflate Rushdie, as well as the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the French magazine Charlie Hebdo both of which printed cartoons of Prophet Muhammad with the West.

"What Rushdie did in Verses is a worthy attempt at a creative exercise, whereas what those newspapers did, as observed by Megan Gibson in Time, was a calculated move to boost circulation. One may disagree with both Rushdie and those newspapers. But why react to the book or the cartoons in this childish way? Why show paranoia over the representation of the Prophet? Why always choose violence? And how does it prove Islam to be a religion of peace?

"If one really thinks this is worth fighting, why is it not possible to fight it artistically or journalistically? Why this blind determination to confirm the Western projection that Muslims are a homogenous entity devoid of the power to think?

"Looking at violent outbursts over Rushdie's book, five Muslim scholars and writers (Edward Said, Aga Shahid Ali, Eqbal Ahmad, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod and Akeel Bilgrami) sent the following letter to a 1989 issue of The New York Review of Books:

"'As writers and scholars from the Islamic world, we are appalled by the vilification, book banning and threats of physical violence against Salman Rushdie, the gifted author of Midnight's Children, Shame and The Satanic Verses.

"'This campaign is done in the name of Islam, although none of it does Islam any credit. Certainly, Muslims and others are entitled to protest against The Satanic Verses if they feel the novel offends their religion, and cultural sensibilities. But to carry protest and debate into the realm of bigoted violence is in fact antithetical to Islamic traditions of learning and tolerance.'

"When bigotry is on the rise all over the world and across religions, we must respond by writing more boldly for artistic and journalistic freedom. As for Rushdie and those attacked in Bangladesh, we must do more through writing and activism to keep our secular traditions alive."

[1] Outlookindia.com (India), September 2, 2022. The original English of the article has been lightly edited for clarity and standardization.

See the original post:
Bangladeshi Editor Rifat Munim Supports Salman Rushdie's Freedom Of Speech: 'Why React To The Book Or The Cartoons In This Childish Way? Why Show...

Jen Seyderhelm comments

Evelyn Hall, writing under the male pseudonym ofStephen Tallentyre, wrote in a biography ofVoltaire,

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This quote has become a describing principle of freedom of speech, also evident in the ongoing popularity of genuine talkback radio and incredible popularity of podcasts as a sort of audio Encyclopaedia Britannica.

This month two instances of freedom of speech vs wealth played out in public and on social media.

Firstly, Crikey is an independent, private and digital media company based (unsurprisingly) here in Australia.

In June Crikeys Political EditorBernard Keanewrote anarticleaboutDonald Trumpsinvolvement in the insurrection attempt at the US Capitol.This commentary article was taken down the next day after a legal threat fromLachlan Murdoch, the Executive Chairman of Fox News, whose last name was mentioned in the piece.

Instead of avoiding a David vs Goliath stoush, Crikey instead chose to republish the article and bite back against Murdoch. The company paid advertising costs to print an open letter challenging him. Certain publications turned this down, but the New York Times and my local Canberra Times eventuallyprinted it.

Ill make no further comment except that it reminds me of anEric Clapton incident.

Those of us working in the broadcast or print media know we are governed by codes, practices and regulations likethis. Podcasts affiliated with a radio station or, in the instance ofTeachers Pet, print media, are covered by these rules.

But what aboutindependent podcasts?

What I love and what I teach about podcasts is that they are a safe and private space to explore topics, ideas and beliefs that both make you feel like you arent alone in your experience and to open your mind to others beyond that scope.

When you click on an episode, you arent inundated with carefully curated images or savage twitter backlash.

Its just you and the person/people you are listening to.

Afterwards, of course, you might search for more information aboutBren Brown,Joe RoganorBen Shapiro.If their views stir something in you, perhaps youll subscribe, buy their books or see them live at a location near you.

I must admit Id not heard of Ben Shapiro till this week.

Ben is a US radio announcer, podcaster, author and conservative political commentator. Aged 17 he was the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in America and by 21 had published two of his 11 books. He founded the news website and media company The Daily Wire. His daily political podcast, The Ben Shapiro Show, in 2019 was ranked the second most popular in the US and in 2021 the 9thmost listened to on Apple Podcasts.

I should write his promotional material.

No, seriously, he doesnt need me.

Hes had the most unexpected publicity boost this week from an angle so left field that if hed speculated about it in an episode of his show his fans would have thought he was delusional.

Last Wednesday a group called the Podcast Movement (described as the worlds largest community of podcasters) was in the third day of a podcast expo in Dallas Texas. The Daily Wire had paid for a booth for the first time and, because of their large presence in podcasting, the Podcast Movement had accepted their money and allowed the set up.

Ben Shapiro decided to drop into the Expo and his booth. He meets and greets some fans, gets some pictures taken and mingles in the crowd.

Word gets around about this unexpected visit by this owner/founder to his booth.

The Podcast Movement then issuesan apologyso obsequious that its astonishing that they allowed anyone at all to attend who wasnt vetted to be 100% impartial on everything.

I wonder if Shapiro is considered suing the Podcast Movement for criticising and causing harm?

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending where you sit on Shapiro and his views) Ben has largely seen the humour in the situation and moved on.

Both incidents, and the legal battle between Crikey and Murdoch, leave me dumbfounded.

Thats probably for the best.

Were I to comment freely on the utter waste of money, legal fees and social media space on either of these matters then perhaps I may also be hauled over the coals by media regulators for disagreeing, contributing or inflaming the situation.

Ill just keep those opinions to myself.

About the Author

Jen Seyderhelm is a Breakfast Announcer at Forever Classic 2CA, a Podcast and Voiceover educator, and she is currently counting down the greatest one hit wonders of all time in Australia.

Original post:
Crikey! The exclamation of Free Speech - RadioInfo Australia - Radioinfo

Mr Shawcross, the former chairman of the charity commission, also cited a Christian preacher who critiqued the Koran stabbed at Speakers Corner and the closure earlier this year of the Shia film, Lady of Heaven, about the daughter of Muhammed after protests from Muslims.

He said: The charge of blasphemy really does seem to be in danger of limiting free expression. The recent horrific attack on Salman Rushdie is something that is another example of the fact that we haven't come to grips with it.

Here in the UK, we've had a teacher go into hiding, a shopkeeper in Glasgow murdered, a Christian preacher knifed at Speaker's Corner, and a Shia film pulled from the cinemas at the demands of protesters mostly Muslim protesters.

Hosting a conversation with former minister Michael Gove and Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terror laws, he asked: What needs to be done about free expression in terms of our concerns about extremism and terrorism because some of these attackes were indeed terroristic?

How do we deal with the charge of blasphemy? And how do we stop it having a veto on free expression that it has?

Mr Shawcross warned that Britain was not pushing back strongly enough against those who exploited blasphemy to stifle free speech.

Mr Gove, who ran education, justice, environment, the Cabinet office and levelling up department as a minister, said attempts to restrict freedom of speech by invoking blasphemy for talking about the tender feelings of believers should not be indulged in a society like ours.

Although many people might have found the Lady of Heaven film genuinely offensive, he said you dont police artistic expression in that way.

He said people might regard Salman Rushdie as ungallant or rude to have written Satanic Verses that caused offence but he added: "Free speech means nothing if it doesn't give you the freedom to offend."

Mr Shawcross challenged him over whether the Government should take a more robust approach like Emmanuel Macron who gave a state funeral to the teacher beheaded for showing his class Muhammed cartoons.

He said: When a teacher in Batley showed his class, similar cartoons he was not killed, but Islamist protesters came to the school and terrorised him and the school. He has gone into hiding, his life irreparably changed. What can we do about this? Was Macron right to make such an example?

Mr Gove replied: Emmanuel Macron has been incredibly robust in calling out Islam. Anyone who has seen what he's said or knows the very clear distinctions that he's drawn, I think that's absolutely right to do.

Read the original here:
Batley row 'shows how extremists are using blasphemy to attack free speech' - The Telegraph

Title IX, the federal law enacted to combat discrimination based on gender just recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Enacted in 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Perhaps best known for its application to ensure that females receive equal footing with male counterparts when it comes to athletics in public schools, Title IX also addresses discrimination when it comes to recruitment, admissions, counseling. financial assistance, sex-based harassment and assault, treatment of pregnant and parenting students, treatment of LGBTQI+ students, discipline, single-sex education, and employment.

And in addition to some 17,600 local school districts and over 5,000 postsecondary institutions nationwide that receive federal financial assistance, Title IX also applies to other local and state educational organizations such as charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, museums, vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies.

While there are no doubt some admirable intentions and results of the 50-year-old legislation, Title IX has also been a lightning rod for controversy as many institutions have used the act as a premise to enforce their own established rules governing speech and actions, which have pitted them squarely against other enumerated rightsspecifically the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Recently, the Biden Administrations Department of Education set forth a Fact Sheet to accompany its proposed amendments to Title IX that would appear to give cover to those institutions already curtailing speech. The Fact Sheet begins by stating:

The Departments proposed amendments will restore vital protections for students in our nations schools which were eroded by controversial regulations implemented during the previous Administration.

It goes on to state:

Through the proposed regulations, the Department reaffirms its core commitment to fundamental fairness for all parties; protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom; and respect for the autonomy and protections that complainants need and deserve when they come forward with a claim of sex discrimination.

This would be the fact sheets only reference to Freedom of Speech, and more importantly there is no hint to just how that right would be protected in light of the following from the Dept. of Education:

The proposed regulations would cover all forms of sex-based harassment, including unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a persons ability to participate in or benefit from a schools education program or activity.

And with that little phrasecreating a hostile environmentThe Department of Education opens the door for weaponizing Title IX to further curtail freedom of thought and speech in an educational environment.

Most of the Education Departments expanding focus appears to center on how transgenderism and transgenders themselves are going to be addressed at publicly funded institutions. In that regard, schools have curtailed speech that they consider complicit in creating a hostile environment for transgenders by using institutional policies or falling back on the provisions of Title IX.At least two California universities have already laid the groundwork for curtailing expression with written policy. At the University of the Pacific in Stockton, the Title IX coordinator (yes, each institution accepting federal funds is required to employ one) released auniversity policy that stated:

Misgendering is the intentional or unintentional use of pronouns or identifiers that are different from those used by an individual. Unintentional misgendering is usually resolved with a simple apology if someone clarifies their pronouns for you. Intentional misgendering is inconsistent with the type of community we hold ourselves out to be. We all get to determine our own gender identity and expression, but we dont get to choose or negate someone elses.

The statement went on to identify deadnaminga relatively new term in the transgender vernacularwhich is defined as using a transitioning or transitioned individuals previous name as a form of harassment and bullying.

In 2020, the University of California system set forth policy that also defines deadnaming and further allows students and alumni to alter names on official UC documents such as diplomas without a legal name change. This was codified in California state law with the signing of Assembly Bill 245 in 2021.

While the new Title IX guidelines set forth by the Biden administrations Dept. of Education do not specifically require institutions to prohibit misgendering or stifle speech regarding gender ideology, there are those that fear that these new regulations will do just that, or at the very least give the typical progressive school campus cover to do so.

But what happens when speech code police on college campuses run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment governing freedom of speechspecifically when it comes to misgendering or refusing to employ preferred pronouns? To date, students, faculty, and staff have been subjected to censorship and other sanctions for violating campus speech codes in this regard. However, when challenged in court these punishments dont necessarily carry the day.

In 2018 at Shawnee State University, a public institution in Ohio, a professor was sanctioned for refusing to employ a students preferred pronouns. Citing his First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion, the professor sued. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals backed his claims, and the university was forced to settle with the professor.

Closer to home, the 3rd District California State Court of Appeals ruled last year that parts of SB 219 governing nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities violation of which could result in fines and/or imprisonmentwere unconstitutional. Specifically, the justices took issue with the clause that reads:

Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a residents preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

The unanimous opinion reads in part:

The penalty for referring to patients in a manner inconsistent with their identities restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the governments compelling interest in eliminating discrimination.

We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another persons expressed gender identity, but the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a persons point of view.

The Courts opinion seems unambiguous here and certainly begs the question, if this applies to long term care and skilled nursing facilities, how could it not apply to other institutions such as those governed by Title IX?

The expanding language of Title IX, and more importantly the expanding use of the act to limit if not stifle speech appears to be on a collision course with the First Amendment. This will all no doubt need to be sorted out in a court near you-or perhaps a court some three thousand miles away in Washington. That particular court as of late seemingly holds the tenets of our constitution in high, if not supreme regard.

Here is the original post:
Expansion of Title IX Tramples First Amendment - California Globe

By Andy Brack | The mind-numbingly endless debate about abortion in South Carolina has gotten even weirder.

Radical Republicans in the legislature the very people who havent stopped talking about abortion for two decades and inject it into the legislative debate at the drop of a hat now want us to stop talking about it completely. And if we dont? We could be complicit in breaking the law.

Of course, the state Senate and then the House would have to pass a version of a bill to ban abortion that includes unconstitutional prohibitions on providing information about abortions.

The bill, S. 1373 by Sens. Richard Cash, Rex Rice and Danny Verdin, all Upstate Republicans, would make it a felony to knowingly and intentionally provide abortion information to a pregnant woman or anyone seeking information for a pregnant woman by telephone, internet or any form of communication. The proposal, now in Verdins Senate committee, also would make it a felony to host an internet website that provides abortion information.

In other words, the bill seeks to prohibit doctors from providing information to patients about how someone in South Carolina could get an abortion outside of South Carolina. But it would also prohibit anybody from sending an email or providing information on a website. And that would include any newspapers or media outlets that published stories in print or online about abortions and where people are getting them.

These guys want, in no uncertain terms, to chill our rights to free speech and my constitutional right to publish what I believe is newsworthy.

And theyre unabashed in admitting it, as one of the three said in a genial Thursday conversation.

The bill is drafted and in there for debate, said Rice, a Greenville Republicane. I would love to say you cant say anything about abortion and you cant tell anybody to go to North Carolina to get one.

But Rice also admitted the current bill likely wouldnt be passed with speech muzzles as written.

Id like to pass it that way, but do I believe it will pass that way? Probably not. But he repeated, I would like you not providing information about going to North Carolina to get one [an abortion].

When asked about the need to criminalize the news process and peoples ability to share information, Rice said, I think that is something we need to discuss in committee. Obviously that is an extreme position that myself as a cosponsor of the bill would like to address. We dont want that information provided.

Throughout a wide-ranging conversation, Rice was polite and seemed to listen carefully. He emphasized the bills proposals would be scrutinized in committee, which would take into consideration concerns about free speech and the free press.

The three of us that helped draft that bill, none of us are attorneys, Rice admitted. I think theres some stuff that obviously the [Senate] attorneys will say you cant do that, and were going to have to listen to those concerns.

But that hasnt stopped these zealots from poking the bear of free speech and free press. Its pretty amazing that in an America worried by government takeover of guns, health care or any number of issues, these very same leaders want to use the government to take away our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

They should be ashamed. How did we get to a place in America where people are using the legislative process as a hammer to talk about what they dont want us to talk about?

Now, however, the poked bear is awake. And these folks will have a hell of a battle on their hands to tell editors what they can and cant write.

And theyll also have to live with unintended consequences. Right now, for example, its completely legal to write a story about how someone in South Carolina can get an abortion somewhere else. Someone will. And Ill publish it.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.

Excerpt from:
BRACK: S.C. Senate is poking free speech bear on abortion Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report

Audio articles on Wilson County News made possible by C Street Gift Shop in downtown Floresville

Freedom of Speech is being defended by two U.S. attorneys general and the Joe Biden censorship squad is being sued for social media collusion. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, bold warriors of justice are on the frontlines.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has been tweeting information at twitter.com/AGEricSchmitt/status/1522298313311096833.

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. William O. Douglas

Applause for the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana for initiating the recent lawsuit. But, where are the other state leaders of justice?

According to the National Association of Attorneys General, all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have an attorney general who serves as the chief legal officer in their jurisdiction, counsels its government agencies and legislatures, and is a representative of the public interest. Click the following link to find the attorney general in your state. http://www.naag.org/news-resources/research-data/who-are-americas-attorneys-general/.

Whats the lawsuit about?

According to The World Tribune, the lawsuit alleges Joe Biden, former press secretary Jen Psaki, Anthony Fauci, former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and others)pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called disinformation and misinformation, which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19. Visit http://www.worldtribune.com/lawsuit-alleging-biden-collusion-with-social-media-to-censor-conservatives-allowed-to-proceed/.

Also in the lawsuit, Biden and mainstream media giants are on the hotseat for allegedly trying to squash the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In reference to the lawsuit, The New York Post reported, The suit specifically accuses the government of suppression in the case of The Posts Hunter Biden laptop story, the theory that COVID-19 stemmed from a Wuhan lab, the effectiveness of wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID-19 and the security of mail-in voting during the pandemic. Visit nypost.com/2022/05/05/biden-sued-for-colluding-with-big-tech-to-suppress-free-speech-on-hunter-laptop/.

Biden, top-ranking government officials and five social media autocrats must provide documents within 30 days. Twitter, Meta (aka Facebook), YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn were served third-party subpoenas. Visit ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/07/19/missouri-louisiana-serve-discovery-requests-subpoenas-on-top-biden-administration-officials-and-social-media-giants.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

Will attorney generals, judges, and courts encounter more censorship about the alleged censorship from the censorship caravan?

The D.C. spin machine must be twirling and whirling like rubbish in a tornado. The fiends of fib are working overtime while the puppet masters circle the wagons. And of course, mainstream media puppets are ignoring the elephant in the room. What elephant? What censoring of speech? What lawsuit?

What can citizens do? Contact TX Attorney General Ken Paxton at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ and send a link to my op-ed article. Write a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper. Tweet and retweet info on the ensuing lawsuit.

Wise up. Stand up. Speak Up. And choose to fight for our freedoms.

Well, I wont back down. No, I wont back down. You can stand me up to the gates of hell, but I wont back down, sang Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers.

Melissa Martin, Ph.D., a freelance syndicated columnist, is published in various national and international print and digital newspapers. She is a semi-retired therapist and educator.

NOTE: Items posted to the WCN Blog Pages are the opinions of the writer, and do not necessarily the opinion of the Wilson County News, its management, or staff.

Read the original:
Will AG Ken Paxton join the fight for freedom of speech? - Wilson County News

Making it safe to be gay. Providing support for victims of domestic violence. Being free to express yourself and your beliefs. Providing access to education for every child. Ensuring injustices dont go unheard in the courts. The right to protest. Protection and security for all human life. Helping families seeking asylum. Supporting people with disabilities whose dignity has been violated. These are just some examples of the things that the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act protects.

But on June 22, Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State for Justice announced plans to replace the UKs Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights.

He said at the timethat the new bill would curb abuses of the system and reinject a healthy dose of common sense [into it] by strengthen[ing] traditional UK rights such as freedom of speech under attack, from expanding privacy law to stifling political correctness and recognis[ing] the importance of jury trials in the UK.

Human rights organisations and lawyers alike, however,have argued that rather than further safeguarding human rights, this new bill will actually diminish them.

The Law Society, an independent body which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said this bill represents a lurch backwards for the British justice system, while Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UKs Chief Executive, has describedthe bill as a giant leap backwards for the rights of ordinary people. Liberty, the UKs largest civil liberties organisation, has even gone so far as to dub it the "Rights Removal Bill.

Heres what you need to know, and how you can help take action to ensure our human rights in the UK are protected and not abused.

Remember a few weeks ago when a plane full of refugees and asylum-seekers narrowly escaped deportation to Rwanda?

The 11th hour decision to keep the plane grounded on June 14 was made because of a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

In a nutshell, the UK Supreme Court was overruled by the European court.

You might be thinking? I thought Brexit meant wed opted out of all that? The ECtHR (despite having the word European in its name) is not a European Union institution and so Brexit did not affect the UKs relationship with it. Were still part of Europe after all.

The Conservative Party has long wanted to reform the Human Rights Act. Their plans to scrap it were in their 2010and 2015party manifestos. But the issue was catapulted into the foreground by the ruling in June because of the governments attempt to remove asylum-seekers to Rwanda for processing and claiming asylum.

Why? Because getting rid of the Human Rights Act is a one-way ticket to get the ECtHR off the UK governments back. In short, it would mean the UK government would have the final say on human rights issues, not the ECtHR.

Dominic Raab has describedthe change as affirming the supremacy of the Supreme Court, [and] being explicit that the UK courts are under no obligation to follow the Strasbourg case law.

This would prevent, for example, a similar intervention from the ECtHR if the government were to attempt to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda again.

Why the change?

The UK government says they want British courts to have supremacy over the ECtHR in order to, for example, deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda.

Who will be most affected?

Refugees, asylum seekers and migrantsbecause the new Bill of Rights will allow them to be deported more easily.

What are human rights organisations saying about this?

Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officers at Liberty, has said: Refugees and migrants, already disadvantaged, will find it harder to defend their basic rights and challenge deportation.

He added that this bill will mean that the European Court of Human Rights cant act in emergencies to protect us from situations that put us at risk of serious and irreparable harm.

Why the change?

Currently, the Human Rights Act empowers ordinary people to challenge abuses of their rights in British courts.

But the government wants to introduce a permission stage that will require people to prove theyve suffered significant disadvantage before they even get to court.

They say this is to ensure that spurious and trivial cases that dont merit court time or public resources do not undermine public confidence in human rights.

Who will be most affected?

People with learning disabilities and their families are often dependent on a range of public bodies to uphold their human rightsand the new changes introduced could weaken their protections.

This change would also make it much harder for children to access justice, according to the Children Rights Alliance for England, as they are more reliant on their parents or carers to help them make such decisions. In particular, this change would negatively impact societys most vulnerable children such as children in care, child witnesses, children in custody, and refugee children.

What are human rights organisations saying about this?

Writer, lawyer and activist, Talina Hrzeler arguesthat theres no such thing as trivial human rights and that this change opens the floodgates to more disastrous violations.

Liberty says that requiring people to prove their case before theyve even got to court is incredibly difficult when youre up against the power of the State and will ultimately meanthat justice may only be available to people who can afford it.

Even the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) argues that introducing additional criteria for bringing a human rights claim will make it harder for ordinary people to access justice and hold the state to account.

Mary Woodhall, a self advocate and member of Learning Disability England, has said that this change is making some people with learning disabilities feel isolated, scared and left out.

Why the change?

Dominc Raab claimsthat democratic debate in this country has been "whittled away by wokery" and space needs to be created for more rambunctious debate.

Who will be most impacted?

The most interesting part of this change is who wont be impacted: the UK government. Thats right, there are clauses in the new bill that would specificallyexempt the governmentitself from having to comply with its new free speech rules, so if the government were to pose a threat to free speech, people wouldn't be protected.

This means, for example, that people challenging deportation are not protectedby these freedom of speech protections.

What are human rights organisations saying?

Prof Phillipson, a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and an authority in free speech law,writes: The notion that this clause is aimed at combating wokery doesnt make sense to me and suggests that its more rhetoric aimed at pleasing their supporters and [...] the right-wing press.

Free speech supporters have also condemned the UK governments humble-brag that the Bill of Rights will boost freedom of expression. In fact, they say it will actually undermine it and have accused the government of peddling a false narrative.

Whats more, anti-censorship campaigners have pointed outthe hypocrisy of ministers talking about placing more weight on the importance of free speech while they have literally just passed a bill that curbs the right to protestwith the intent to create a hostile environment for peaceful demonstrations.

Why the change?

The UK government believes that the Human Rights Act has been abused by convicted foreign nationals and says the changes will make it harder for foreign criminals to frustrate the deportation process.

What impact would the change have?

In the UK, if a foreign national (someone who is not a British citizen) is convicted of a crime that results in prison time of more than a year, they are automatically deported at the end of their sentence. Over a 10-year period, almost 50,000 foreign national offenders were deported from the UK.

However, convicted foreign nationals are able to invoke the right to a family life, currently protected under the Human Rights Act. This might be because they have been here since they were children or they have a family in this country. Their argument is that if they are deported its a breach of their human rights.

The Bill of Rights will narrow the scope of those appeals, making them almost impossible. Cases will only be accepted in the rarest of occasions, for example, when someones life is actually in danger.

What are human rights organisations saying?

Andy Hull, chief executive of human rights charity EachOther, said that the bill puts new and higher hurdles in the way of ordinary people who turn to the law to uphold their rights. In particular, it will make it much more difficult for the loved ones of someone who committed a crime but has served [their] time to invoke rights to fair trial or to family life to prevent [their] removal from the country.

Anothercriticismof this particular change is that it does not properly recognise nuance. The amendments in the bill take no account of the circumstances of the offence, nor of whether the individual continues to pose a risk to the public.

Ultimately, this new bill will affect us all but some more than others. Some have argued that the government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act because it sees certain people as less deserving of rights than others. Often, these people are the people who are already marginalised and need human rights protections the most.

If youre based in the UK, join Global Citizens in taking urgent action to stop the governments plan to replace the Human Rights Act by emailing your MP now to make sure our human rights are protected and not abused.

Visit link:
The UK Government Wants to Scrap the Human Rights Act. Here's What to Know. - Global Citizen

When Washington Post reporter David Weigel retweeted a joke in early June, he probably didnt expect to be suspended without pay for a month, or for it to lead to a newsroom blowup culminating in another reporters firing and a very public black eye for the Post.

Comedian Dave Chappelle probably didnt expect to have his show at First Avenue in Minneapolis canceled last week either but given reactions to his jokes about transgender issues, he probably wasnt surprised it happened somewhere. Chappelle cant really be fired, of course, and he performed at a nearby venue the same week.

Cancel culture never does stop exactly where our individual senses of moral judgment all of which differ, of course might suggest.

Some view these cancellations as success stories: They see the widespread chilling of bad speech as a desirable outcome, ridding our public square of everything from hate to poor taste. But cancel culture never does stop exactly where our individual senses of moral judgment all of which differ, of course might suggest. Just ask Felicia Sonmez, the reporter who called out Weigels tweet. Surely, she didnt anticipate that her own job would become collateral damage in what she saw as a righteous attempt to get her colleague punished. Who would?

Surveys show that most Americans are concerned about the implications of our nations crash dive toward a puritanical social environment in which employers, colleges, and cultural institutions of all kinds are quick to punish, deplatform, suspend, and/or fire people, rightly identifying cancel culture as a growing threat to our freedom. Yet, the idea of free speech is often mischaracterized in the style of Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse as a tool of oppression that privileges the powerful.

Marcuse criticized the liberal idea that speech should be tolerated on a neutral basis. [T]olerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, he wrote, believing people could reliably identify bad speech and should attempt to root it out. In that vein, he advocated for a tactical, selective, tolerance which privileges some speech over other speech, conveniently using his own subjective moral framework as the barometer by which speech is judged worth tolerating. Liberating tolerance, he wrote, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

His philosophy is becoming mainstream. Op-eds from major news outlets regularly describe appeals to free speech as dog whistles designed to empower fringe political groups or as weapons used to undermine virtuous social movements. Universities construct vague policies that conflate protected speech with violence or harassment. Companies encourage workplace orthodoxy by taking public stances on contentious issues. Too many institutions, implicitly or explicitly, have onboarded the message that we can reliably identify bad speech and must make every effort to shut it down.

Powerful institutions and Marxist social theory, which advocates challenging the powerful, make a paradoxical pairing. Surely the leaders of these institutions, many of which are very distinctly profit-seeking capitalist ventures, must know this. So why has it gone mainstream?

In the absence of a culture that champions a principled defense of free speech, institutions not legally obligated to uphold free speech are, in the short term, incentivized to implement and enforce policy in whatever direction the social wind blows, strategically capitulating to the loudest voices.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should cancel people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power.

In this, institutions can count on backup from those who play down the effects of their decisions at least when those decisions impact someone they dont like. Cancel culture is overblown. You yourself said that Chappelle was able to perform the same week at a different venue! This conveniently overlooks the fact that when it comes to comedy, Chappelle is the powerful. Hes already wealthy, massively popular, and can book and fill a show in less than a day. Its similar for many of the famous figures in entertainment and culture whose cancellations make the news, yet who seem mostly to make out all right.

But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set. The message isnt aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should cancel people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power. Left free to selectively enforce policies in the manner those in charge find most palatable or convenient, the powerful are further empowered to crack down on anything they dont like, from bad jokes and unorthodox opinions to critiques of bad governance and exposure of corruption. This might be a good deal for those running the institutions; its a bad deal for everyone else.

Amidst the Weigel controversy, FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff tweeted, A lot of people have asked me today the distinction between free speech law & #freespeech culture. Free-speech culture means, for example, being hesitant to suspend a journalist for RTing a joke. It doesnt mean they cant, but rather a thumb on the scale for that they shouldnt.

Bad speech is better handled through criticism, not cancellation.

A free speech culture is not one dominated by fear and shame, in which those who transgress unspoken rules are rapidly sanctioned, leading to the self-silencing of countless others. It is one in which people and institutions, by-and-large, choose to refrain from trying to silence those with whom they disagree or find offensive, recognizing that bad speech is better handled through criticism, not cancellation.

Its a culture characterized by a widespread recognition of the importance of free speech for all, even those with whom we disagree, if for no other reason than because we understand that cancel culture doesnt stop where our own opinions and tastes begin.

And its not a zero-sum game.

The expression of one perspective does not necessitate the repression of another. A video in FIREs new national ad campaign, Faces of Free Speech, featuring former NFL player and U.S. Army Green Beret Nate Boyer, powerfully illustrates this point. In the ad, Boyer describes a conversation he had with Colin Kaepernick after penning an open letter expressing his complicated feelings about the football players decision to kneel during the national anthem. During their discussion, Kaepernick asked Boyer to kneel with him. I told him, I cant do that, said Boyer, but I would stand next to him.

Boyers decision to stand didnt undermine Kaepernicks decision to kneel, or vice versa. In a free speech culture, we can have our speech and hear others too. Thats why FIRE has spent two decades defending the rights of students and faculty from across the political spectrum, from advocates of animal rights and of universal healthcare, to critics of the Chinese government and of land acknowledgements, and is now expanding its mission to defend free speech principles off campus as well.

You dont have to always like how people choose to express their freedoms, said Boyer, but we were both willing to just have a conversation. Thats what freedom of speech is.

More here:
Cancel culture empowers the powerful at everyone elses expense - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

CHAPEL HILL, N.C., July 28, 2022 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student government president issued an order this month cutting off executive branch funding to any individual, business, or organization that advocates for pro-life causes.

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called on the UNC Chapel Hill student government to rescind the order and commit to distributing funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

This is blatant viewpoint discrimination and a clear violation of fundamental First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney Zach Greenberg, who wrote todays letter to the university. A student government should represent the entire student body, not abuse its power by seeking to censor classmates with opposing views.

On July 6, the UNC Chapel Hill Student Government executive branch issued an order prohibiting contracts or funding to any individual, business, or organization which actively advocates to further limit by law access to reproductive healthcare. It is unclear exactly what types of funding requests are subject to the executive branchs unconstitutional and discriminatory prohibition. The student senate also handles funding requests and, to date, has not taken the same viewpoint discriminatory stance.

UNC Chapel Hills chapter of Students for Life, one of the countrys largest pro-life advocacy organizations, responded with a statement expressing dismay and urging Student Body President Taliajah Vann to rescind the order and live up to her campaign promise that she would help every member of the student body.

As a public institution, UNC Chapel Hill is bound by the First Amendment, which precludes the school from discriminating against student groups based on viewpoint. The student government is therefore constitutionally required to distribute funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Additionally, UNC Chapel Hill makes strong commitments to free speech, earning FIREs highest, green light rating. FIREs letter to Vann asks her administration to immediately rescind the unconstitutional order and commit to viewpoint neutrality.

UNC Chapel Hills student government cannot declare itself the arbiter of which opinions are acceptable, said Greenberg. We call on these student leaders to uphold their constituents free speech rights by doling out funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nations campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Katie Kortepeter, Media Relations Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Here is the original post:
Repressive executive order from UNC Chapel Hill student government cuts off funding for pro-life individuals, causes - Foundation for Individual...