The Supreme Courts decision on two cases challenging social media content moderation policies could expand protections for tech platforms under the First Amendment umbrella even if Congress were to dilute other protections, according to legal expertsclosely watching the issue.

Companies posting user content on the internet, like Meta Platforms Inc., enjoya broad shield under Section230 ofa 1996 law that protectstech against liability for such content. Lawmakers who want such platforms to rein in harmful content have threatened to revoke that section and force stricter moderation of what gets uploaded.

But the courts decision last week, which remanded the Florida and Texas cases to lower courts, opens the door tobroader, more fundamental cover from the First Amendment, even as the ruling expressly avoids declaring social media posts to be free speech.

At the end of the day, a lot of the content thats protected by Section 230 would also be protected by the First Amendment, and that includes choices made by social media services to take down or not cut down particular content, said Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

What the court is saying here is that those are protected by the First Amendment, Jain said in an interview, referring to how companies moderate content on their platforms. And that would be true even if Section 230 didnt exist.

TheTexas and Florida lawswere part of thepushback to perceived censorship of conservative views by tech companies, including Meta,Google parent Alphabet Inc. and others. The laws required the platforms to offer a detailed explanation and appeals process when users or their content were blocked. Tech companies sued to end the laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit enjoined parts of the Florida law on First Amendment grounds, while the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law but stayed its enforcement pending appeal. Both states appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Elena Kagan criticized the 5th Circuit decision that upheld the Texas law, writing for a six-justice majority that social media content moderation is free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation and then organizing and presenting the included items is expressive activity of its own, Kagan wrote.

Although privacy advocates opposed the Texas and Florida laws, some were alarmed by the majority opinion likening actions of social media companies to those made in newsrooms.

Kagans views are disappointing, because it analogizes social media platforms to the editorial work of newspapers, said Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout, a senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project.

As we argued in our amicus brief, and as noted in todays concurring opinions, social media platforms are more like town squares, Teachout said in a statement. The First Amendment is not a shield for censorship and discrimination in the town square, and it shouldnt protect against discrimination and targeting by opaque algorithms.

Expanding First Amendment protections to include content moderation and curation by tech companies could potentially result in protections even in cases where no human judgment is involved, according to Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University who previously served as a senior White House official on tech policy.

The next phase in this struggle will presumably concern the regulation of artificial intelligence, Wu wrote in a July 2 op-ed in The New York Times. I fear that the First Amendment will be extended to protect machine speech at considerable human cost.

Algorithms that are currently used by tech companies to determine which posts and content are allowed and which aretaken down are merely automated versions of human choices, Jain argued.

Jain offered the example of computer code screening and flagging users posts for certain terms and phrases considered by the tech platforms to be hateful speech. Even though its an algorithm in some ways, implementing human decision, he said.

In the context of protecting Americans data privacy, some members of Congress have been mulling ways to curb the broad liability protections that tech companies enjoy because of Section 230.

In recent months, top House lawmakers including Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and ranking member Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., have held hearings on sunsettingsuchprotections by the end of 2025.

As written, Section 230 was originally intended to protect internet service providers from being held liable for content posted by a third-party user or for removing truly horrific or illegal content, Rodgers said at a committee hearing in May. But giant social media platforms have been exploiting this to profit off us and use the information we share to develop addictive algorithms that push content onto our feeds.

Some fear the emergence of powerful artificial intelligence systems that could potentially make decisions on their own without human direction will complicate the question of First Amendment protections for content moderation.

According to Jain, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her concurring opinion, raised the question of a future where tech companies could develop an artificial intelligence tool whose job is to figure out what is hateful, what isnt and whether a human really is making an expressive choiceprotected by the First Amendment.

Thats a question the [justices] dont answer, Jain said.

See the original post:

Ruling boosts social media free speech protections, some say - Roll Call

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.

Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely, Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Read more here:

Lawsuit claims new election rules interfere with free speech - Daily Independent

The article is here; here are the introductory paragraphs:

In a brief and largely overlooked section of the Doctrine of Right, Kant considers the right a person has to retain a good reputation after their death, the acquisition of which he calls "a phenomenon as strange as it is undeniable." Kant here is not claiming that one should never speak ill of the dead, at least if one is speaking truthfully (although Kant does count it "a duty of virtue not to take malicious pleasure in exposing the faults of others"). Rather, Kant's concern is with posthumous defamation: the telling of lies that in some way "stains" the name of the deceased. Kant explains that when such a right is violated, those still alive acquire an obligation to restore the reputation of the dead. This obligation apparently falls on everyone regardless of their relation to the deceased: "[A]n apologist need not prove his authorization to play the role of apologist for the dead, for everyone inevitably arrogates this to himself as belonging to the right of humanity as such."

Although Kant has no doubt that there really is such a right against posthumous defamation, he is very puzzled by it, admitting that "It is therefore indisputable that there is a basis for such an ideal acquisition for someone's right after his death against those who survive him, even though no deduction of its possibility can be given" (emphasis added). Kant's perplexity is understandable. He considers the right to a good reputation to be part of "private right," concerning "what is externally mine or yours" such as property, contractually obligated performances, and the peculiar category of "domestic right" that heads of households supposedly have with respect to their spouses, their children, and their domestic servants. The violation of private right involves the wrongful infliction of harm or loss in a way that would normally call for at least some sort of compensation from the party responsible. So understood, this right immediately raises the question of whether, and in what ways, the dead can be harmed or deprived of something, and more broadly how the dead can still have interests that merit legal protection.

Whether the dead can still be harmed or helped is a long-standing philosophical question going back at least to Aristotle (who answers both in the affirmative). If the only things intrinsically good or bad for a person are their experiences (or aspects of experience, like pleasure), then death clearly puts a person beyond all injury (assuming, as Kant does, that death is complete annihilation). If we understand a person's good to involve not just experience but the objects of what they desire or otherwise care about, there remains what to make of those desires once the subject of those desires is no more. If I no longer exist after I die, just who could it be that could be benefited by the satisfaction of the desires that I developed when I was alive?

Read the original here:

Journal of Free Speech Law: "Adding Injury to Insult: Kant on Defaming the Dead," by Prof. David Sussman - Reason

In todays digital age, social media platforms have become the primary arena for public discourse. These platforms wield enormous power in shaping public opinion and discourse, yet their role in moderating content has raised significant concerns about free speech and bias. Social media giants like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), YouTube, TikTok, Twitter/X, as well as review platforms like Yelp, have complex review practices that often results in controversial moderation decisions.

Social media companies are at a crossroads. The ethical dilemmas they face are profound as they navigate the thin line between providing a platform for free expression and promoting open dialogue and preventing hate speech. However, recent high-profile cases suggest that these platforms often enforce obscure, inconsistent and opaque rules on what content is allowed, promoted, or blocked, resulting in accusations of bias.

One glaring issue is the appearance of these platforms picking sides in political, cultural, and social debates. For instance, content that aligns with certain political ideologies may receive favorable treatment while opposing views, or even posts with certain keywords, are suppressed by the platforms algorithms. This selective moderation undermines the principle of free speech and distorts public perception, creating echo chambers that amplify specific viewpoints while silencing others.

A particularly troubling aspect of this issue is the rise of antisemitism on social media. With users rapidly consuming short-form content, platforms content often oversimplifies complex issues like the Israel-Hamas war. For example, a 30-second TikTok post recapping the war has no chance of providing the necessary context to someone with no background knowledge. Jewish advocates have specifically called out these platforms for enabling antisemitism through their content policies, allowing and sometimes even amplifying content that perpetuates harmful stereotypes and fuels hate against the Jewish community.

Social media also gives a platform to individuals who may not be adequately informed on critical issues yet have large followers willing to act based on an influencers uninformed or misinformed opinions. This armchair expert phenomenon is particularly dangerous, as influential voices can spread misinformation and hate, amplifying antisemitic rhetoric and shaping biased narratives. The speed and reach of social media mean that false or harmful content can go viral before accurate information has a chance to catch up.

The challenges social media companies face in moderating content are undeniable. They must tackle the spread of a seemingly infinite amount of misinformation, protect users from hate speech and harassment, and navigate the demands of various interest groups. However, their current practices often fall short of these goals, leading to an outcry for greater transparency and accountability.

Considering this, it is encouraging to see positive developments. This week, Meta took a significant step by expanding their hate speech moderation policy to remove more posts attacking Jewish people and Israelis by labeling them Zionists. This decision acknowledges the importance of diverse perspectives and aims to address some of the biases that have plagued content moderation. Applauding Meta for this move, we hope it sets a precedent for other social media platforms to follow to ensure that all voices, including those advocating for Jewish and Zionist perspectives, are fairly represented.

Social media companies must adopt more transparent content moderation practices to address these issues further. This includes clear and consistent guidelines on what constitutes harmful content, regular audits of moderation practices to ensure impartiality and open communication with users about why certain content is removed or allowed. Additionally, there needs to be a more robust appeals process for users who feel their content has been unfairly targeted.

Policymakers also have a role to play in ensuring social media platforms uphold the principles of free expression while preventing discrimination. Legislation that mandates transparency in content moderation and holds companies accountable for their policies can help strike a balance between free speech and the prevention of hate speech.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a more equitable approach to free speech on digital platforms. By fostering meaningful dialogue and pushing for reforms, we can ensure that social media remains a space for open expression while protecting vulnerable communities from harm. As we navigate this digital age, it is crucial that we demand accountability from social media companies and advocate for policies that uphold our democratic values.

Before coming to Jewish Future Promise, Hadara had a career in both the for-profit and not-for-profit worlds. She was an entrepreneur, building Jan Micolle into a successful womens clothing manufacturing company. After Jan Micolle, she was vice president of distribution and a co-producer at Imagination Productions, an independent not- for- profit documentary film company focused on the Jewish world.

Read the rest here:

The Role of Social Media Companies in Free Speech and Antisemitism - The Times of Israel

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Each summer, as required by state law, the University System of Georgia creates a free speech report.

The document, dated July 1 and provided to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by the University System, said that Georgias public colleges prepared extensively for campus protests related to the war in Israel and Gaza to ensure both that legal expression was protected and that any violations of institutional or USG policy or state or federal law were addressed swiftly.

The report stated: Campus and system office planning succeeded, and USG campuses were able to avoid any major disruptions or damage to institution property while supporting everyones freedom of expression rights throughout the system.

Nine students from the University of Georgia were arrested for criminal trespass by UGA police during one protest in late April. Protests also took place at Kennesaw State University and at the private Emory University, among other sites.

The UGA protesters have said they were just expressing their First Amendment rights and were critical of the universitys response to the demonstrations.

Professor pay

Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC

Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC

An annual compensation survey from the American Association of University Professors outlines what it says are dire pay conditions for part-time college instructors.

The report, released in late June, found that pay for part-time faculty members hasnt changed much in recent years. They received an average of $3,903 for each three-credit course they taught in 2022-2023. During the 2020-2021 year, the average pay per course section was roughly $3,800 and it was roughly $3,900 the following year.

Pay for full-time faculty increased by an average of 3.8% for the 2022-2023 academic year.

The salaries of college presidents, meanwhile, have outpaced the growth in full-time faculty salaries for years. The median salary for those leaders ranged from $259,000 to more than $912,000, depending on the type of school during the last academic year.

The report includes data from more than 800 colleges nationwide, including 375,000 full-time and 92,000 part-time faculty.

Quarters vs. semesters

Should Georgias public college students enroll in classes by the semester or by the quarter?

Thats the question a Georgia House Study Committee will consider as it assesses the class calendars at the University System of Georgia and the Technical College System of Georgia. The committee was authorized by the state House in March and will be led by Rep. Shaw Blackmon, R-Bonaire.

The University System, which includes 26 schools, fully converted from a quarter calendar to a semester calendar in 1999. The states technical colleges have done so since 2011.

The quarter semester calendar is typically three 10-week terms while the semester calendar is two 15-week terms.

One reason for the switch was to align courses within the two systems to make it easier for students to transfer and to make administration work more efficient, according to the resolution authorizing the study committee.

But some observers question whether semesters are the better option for students or for workforce development because the schedule results in longer terms and less-frequent graduation cycles, according to the resolution.

The committees work is to be completed by Dec. 1.

No phishing

The University System of Georgia is warning employees to beware of cybercriminals bent on snagging direct deposit paychecks through phishing emails.

In late June, the vice chancellor for human resources sent an email to high-ranking officials at Georgias 26 public colleges and universities with the subject line Payroll Fraud Alert - Action Needed! In the email, Karin Elliott noted recent attacks targeting USG employees and announced new security measures to prevent cybercrime.

Going forward, if an employee tries to change their direct deposit information to route their paycheck to certain internet-based banks, the University Systems computer program will require that employee to first validate the change with their schools payroll office.

Employees should be careful when clicking on links contained in messages and should report suspicious emails they receive.

Any loss of pay due to an employees negligence must be reported and relief sought through the proper law enforcement authorities. If the loss is due to employee negligence, institutions cannot pay an employee a second time because of their financial loss, the letter said.

Emory University fined

Credit: TNS

Credit: TNS

The U.S. Department of Agriculture hit Emory University with a $42,000 civil penalty for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

The settlement agreement was dated April 30 but publicized in July by the Ohio-based organization Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! or SAEN. The watchdog group tracks the use of animals by university research labs.

The USDA outlined eight alleged violations at Emory dating back to 2019. The incidents included failure to provide sufficient water to animals and mishandling of animals, resulting in the death of several voles. The report also cited concerns related to the death of mice and the condition of several hamsters.

Two monkeys also were found dead in separate incidents after they were trapped inside gaps of an animal enclosure, the report noted.

In a statement, SAENs executive director described the fine as little more than a slap on the wrist.

In a statement to the AJC, Emory University denied the allegations and said it made the payment to avoid costs and uncertainties of litigation, and to resolve and close this matter.

The statement also said: The university fully understands our responsibility for the health and well-being of research animals and honors this by regularly reviewing our animal care program and facilities, implementing quality assurance measures and training personnel to provide the highest quality, humane care and welfare for all animals involved in Emory research.

The school said it has long held full accreditation status from AAALAC International, formerly known as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International.

Emory University will continue to conduct research with animals as part of our commitment to improve the health of our city, nation and world, the schools statement said.

If you have any higher education tips or thoughts, email reporter Vanessa McCray at vanessa.mccray@ajc.com.

See more here:

AJC On Campus: Free speech in Georgia, colleges warned of cybercrime - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Commissioner Krista Joseph responded to the State Attorney's mention of a grand jury investigation in a statement Monday.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Fla. In St. Johns County, a local battle over what is free speech and what is election interference is brewing.

Last fall, St. Johns County commissioner Krista Keating Joseph waved a US flag during a county commission meeting and reminded voters they can vote out incumbents in the upcoming election.

Those words were met with various legal fights and mentions of criminal charges.

The latest chapter in this book involves a grand jury... or the idea of one.

Last November, Joseph held up the elections guide during a November county commission meeting. She told voters if they were not happy with the way the county was going said, "In less than nine months, we have an election."

The other county commissioners objected to her doing that during a meeting.

St. Johns County then hired an outside attorney who said Joseph may have violated election law by speaking about the election as a county commissioner during a county commission meeting.

Joseph is not running for re-election, but is supporting others who are running against incumbents.

In January, she filed a request for a federal judge to make a determination: can she speak about politics in St. Johns County? Joseph believes its her first amendment right. And she has also filed, in the same case, a request for an injunction so she can engage in political speech during the election season.

That case is not resolved yet.

As a response, State Attorney Brian Kramer of the 8th Judicial Circuit, based in Gainesville, who is involved in the federal case, filed a report to the court on July 1. In it, Kramer noted that because Joseph did not agree to stop talking politics, he would have to pursue asking a grand jury to consider if she should be prosecuted criminally.

Here is the question: Is Kramer saying he is taking Josephs case before a grand jury? Or would it be his plan, once the federal case is resolved?

First Coast News reached out to State Attorney Kramers office for clarification. We did not receive a response by the time this story aired.

Josephs attorney sent First Coast News a statement which in part reads: Commissioner Joseph thinks it is extremely unlikely the state attorney would institute criminal charges against her while we are waiting for the federal court to decide the First Amendment issue, especially on the eve of the primary election.

There is high probability that the winners of the county commission seats up for grabs will be decided in the primary election.

Continue reading here:

Free speech or election interference? Legal case involving St. Johns County commissioner continues - FirstCoastNews.com WTLV-WJXX

from the whole-lot-cheaper-to-just-respect-the-Constitution dept

Daniel Horwitz who has fought plenty of free speech battles for Tennesseans has secured an extremely quick victory for his client, Lakeland resident Julie Pereira.

According to the complaint [PDF], which was filed June 6 of this year, the city of Lakeland took offense to a sign Pereira had placed in her yard. It was bit of political speech that expressed her opinion about Donald Trump and Joe Biden all in one pithy phrase: Fuck Em Both 2024.

Someone in power didnt like the sign. The city decided it would start fining Pereira by leveraging its sign regulations which forbid a long list of things.

In particular, the City of Lakeland and its Code Enforcement Officer, Defendant Katrina Shields, believe that Ms. Pereiras Political Sign violates City of Lakeland sign regulations that prohibit statements of an obscene, indecent, or immoral character which would offend public morals or decency and statements, words or pictures of an obscene nature.

The city believed this sign fell under that laundry list of forbiddables, but it actually doesnt. Making things worse is the shifting set of restrictions the city applies to signs, based on little more than the citys perception of what each sign it seeks to regulate actually is.

[U]nder the City of Lakelands Municipal Code, signs are regulated differently depending on whether they are works of art with no commercial message, special event signs for community events, incidental signs, window signs, building marker signs, changeable copy signs, construction signs, directory signs, identification signs, menu board signs, model home signs, principal ground signs, real estate (but not single-family residential) signs, residential real estate signs, subdivision entry signs, temporary signs, wall signs (depending on whether they are nonresidential or residential), temporary residential yard signs, suspended signs, oras herepolitical signs.

Political signs are subject to the most restrictions, governing everything from how many can be placed in any area to how long they can remain in place. The city decided this was a political sign (rather than a work of art or a temporary residential yard sign) and started fining Pereira.

Pereira under the threat of further enforcement even neutered her sign in an attempt to placate the unconstitutional desires of city regulators.

She shouldnt have had to do this, as Horwitz points out in the lawsuit:

This coerced modification has satisfied the Defendants. It does not satisfy Ms. Pereira, though, any more than a jacket bearing the words F*ck the Draft would have satisfied Paul Cohen. Cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971).

The lawsuit swiftly followed the incursion on Pereiras free speech rights (which included nearly $700 in fines). And now a settlement [PDF] has just as swiftly followed this lawsuit. Apparently, all the city needed was a legitimate challenge of its sign statutes and a few minutes to think about it.

Not only will the city be refunding the fines charged to Pereira and covering her legal fees, it has also agreed the law (as applied to Pereira) is unconstitutional. Yeah, its a bit of a unicorn. A government has agreed to settle without attaching a clause denying any wrongdoing.

Under Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Plaintiffs political sign is not obscene, and the Defendants may not lawfully regulate it based on the viewpoint it expresses.

For these reasons, the Court DECLARES UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Defendants enforcement action against the Plaintiff for displaying her unredacted political yard sign, a copy of which is set forth in the record at Doc. 1-1. The Defendants are thus PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any further enforcement action against the Plaintiff for displaying her unredacted political yard sign.

Thats the language the city has agreed to. All it needs now is a judges signature. And with this win, others in the same city should feel free to let their freak fuck flags fly.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, daniel horwitz, first amendment, free speech, fuck em both, julie pereira, lakeland, tennessee

Excerpt from:

Tennessee Woman Scores A Win In Free Speech Lawsuit Filed Over Her Fuck Em Both 2024 Yard Sign - Techdirt

In a region sliding toward authoritarianism one country after another, the small Himalayan nation of Nepal was a shining exception.

Political debates remained largely free, and the powerful could easily be questioned. That openness, in a poor country emerging from centuries of monarchical suppression and decades of insurgency, showed that democratic expression need not necessarily be correlated to economic status.

But the arrest last month of the owner of the countrys largest media conglomerate has raised fears about the Nepali governments commitment to free speech, and about whether the country is now going the way of its South Asian neighbors Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

The executive, Kailash Sirohiya, was detained nearly two weeks ago in a thinly veiled act of retaliation by Nepals powerful home minister, Rabi Lamichhane. The minister had been the subject of intensely negative coverage by the Kantipur Media Group, owned by Mr. Sirohiya.

The companys news articles had disclosed that Mr. Lamichhane, a popular television host before he turned to politics, had broken the law by serving in Parliament while maintaining citizenship in a second country, the United States.

Mr. Lamichhane resigned but then returned months later to Parliament, and to the helm of the Ministry of Home Affairs, after addressing the citizenship issue. Kantipur continued to examine Mr. Lamichhanes actions, however, later reporting accusations of embezzlement against him.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Here is the original post:

Arrest Threatens Nepals Standing as Bastion of Free Speech - The New York Times

Last week, chess player Shakhriyar Mammadyarov expressed his opinion on his YouTube channels show Persona that women are weaker than men in many areas. This statement was harshly criticized on social media and was seen as contrary to the concept of gender equality.

Perhaps, a few years ago, say 5-6 years ago, I would have joined the campaign to criticize Shakhriyar Mammadyarov and might have even been one of those who lynched him. However, age and life experience allow me to analyze what is happening without emotions, calmly and impartially. In this sense, the generalized statements of the chess player about women do not bother me as a woman, and I even want to thank him for publicly expressing his conservative views.

The fact is that it is absolutely necessary to loudly express opposing opinions that do not align with the standards of neoliberals so that those who lynch dissenters on social media and subject them to psychological violence do not dominate society. Neoliberals spread a dangerous virus of the idea that everyone should think alike. They are intolerant of opinions that do not support their stance and, instead of engaging in a normal polemic, exhibit infantile hysteria, considering themselves morally superior to everyone else and unable to digest differences. As a result, a situation has arisen in the West where even the most respected intellectual is forced to remain silent if they disagree with the neoliberals, fearing a massive attack, job loss, and social exclusion. Many times, both abroad and here, when a public figure expresses a conservative opinion, feminists and supporters of gender equality apply emotional and psychological pressure on that person instead of conducting a logical, cultured discussion. Or, for instance, Azerbaijani immigrants may rejoice in the liberation of Karabakh in private conversations but curse the war in their social media posts, fearing deportation from the countries where they have sought asylum. Such behavior is a new form of Nazism in a neoliberal guise. One of the factors preventing our neoliberals from moving from the virtual world to reality is the dominance of mental conservatism in society.

As a journalist, I began my active career at 525-ci qzet (525th Newspaper). During my career, I wrote many critical and rebellious articles against conservative values and the institution of elders. However, my observations of the impudence of modern neoliberalism and its attempts to suppress diversity of opinion, as well as analytical articles I read, gradually dissuaded me from this rebelliousness

Most people who criticize Shakhriyar Mammadyarov for his statements call him a sexist and a person with primitive thinking, emphasizing his disrespect for gender equality in their angry texts. I listened to the part of Shakhriyar Mammadyarovs interview in question; he calmly, without any insulting tone, shares his thoughts, does not oppose womens right to education and self-realization in desired fields, but merely makes a generalization. The main argument of his opponents is that for centuries men have not created equal opportunities for women, so they have not been able to show their talents and strengths. When it comes to art, as a film critic, I can say: compared to other art forms, cinematography is very young. In the years when the cinematic language was developing and being recognized as serious art, many womens rights were already recognized, and they were active in this field. If I were to compile a list of the ten, twenty, or even fifty best directors in the world, not a single female director would be included. Of course, there are women directors with excellent films: Kira Muratova, Larisa Shepitko, Chantal Akerman, Liliana Cavani, Margarethe von Trotta, Agnes Varda, Agnieszka Holland, and others. However, the collective work of all these women directors would still lose to the work of Buuel or Antonioni in terms of artistic criteria, cinematic language, and interpretation. Or in the field of acting, I could name dozens of brilliant actresses. Heres an interesting fact: Rene Jeanne Falconettis performance in Carl Dreyers The Passion of Joan of Arc is still considered the best acting performance in cinema.

Now, to ensure gender equality in cinema, they artificially push female directors, regardless of talent, into prestigious festivals. As a result, films like Titane and Happening, which are genuinely low-quality and irrelevant to art, win awards

When it comes to creating equal opportunities for both genders, women must also be prepared to serve in the military and work in tough jobs, and their biological, anatomical, and physiological characteristics will not be considered. Recently, a law was passed in the Netherlands that requires women to serve in the army based on gender equality. At this rate, the situation will reach the point where women will suffer not from gender inequality but from gender equality.

Looking for signs of sexism in everything has already reached the point of absurdity. In the West, a woman can scold a man who helps her carry a heavy load, seeing it as an insult to her personality and a violation of her rights. Some women believe that gender equality arises when they behave like men and mimic their manners.

Due to the excessive obsession with gender equality, women and men are losing their natural characteristics inherent in their nature, trying to turn gender equality into genderless equality, while medical science is trying to figure out how transgender women (men who have become women) can gain the ability to give birth.

When such situations arise (I mean Shakhriyar Mammadyarovs interview), I return to Russian theater director Konstantin Bogomolovs manifesto The Abduction of Europe 2.0, which caused many discussions a few years ago. According to the author, the ideology of the new ethics formed by the West forces everyone to speak politically correctly, preventing them from expressing their thoughts, ignoring the complex nature of a person their dark sides and flaws, limiting freedom of feelings, and ultimately creating soulless people without differences and contradictions:

The West declares itself a society oriented toward the realization of personal freedoms. In fact, today the West is waging an ongoing struggle against the human person that complex and difficult to control energy. In the course of this struggle, the functions of the courts and prosecutors and the isolation cell have not been eliminated, and yet they have been largely delegated from the state to society. The state itself, in the form of its police and security services, has indeed been humanized. Meanwhile, the nominally progressive part of society takes on the role of the new storm troopers, and with their help, that selfsame state becomes surpassingly effective at combatting dissent.

Feelings and thoughts had always belonged to the private sphere. Keep your hands to yourself; but as for your heart and your brain these were left free. Such was the unspoken social contract of European civilization. It understood that man is a receptacle full of emotions and ideas; it understood that hatred the flip side of love may be a difficult and dangerous thing, but for all that is something necessary and an important part of the human personality.

In the New Ethical Reich, a person is trained to love and deprived of the right to freely hate.

No longer can you say: I do not love , I do not like , I am afraid of You must get your emotions in line with public opinion and social values.

The new ethics also state that you can think whatever you want inside, but it is forbidden to voice it aloud, and your internal censorship must always be vigilant. You must not make mistakes, and the moment you make a mistake, you will lose everything. Neoliberalism, which does not recognize a persons right to make mistakes or to voice their beliefs, has been giving Shakhriyar Mammadyarov Azerbaijani-style advice in recent days: an intellectual must think a hundred times before speaking, know the weight of his words, and so on.

Shakhriyar Mammadyarov deserves thanks for not weighing his words, for thinking differently, and for voicing his beliefs without fear.

Visit link:

Gender, equality, and free speech: A look at Mammadyarov's controversial remarks Aze.Media - Aze Media

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original here:

LETTER: Local government needs to respect free speech - ECM Publishers

The article is here; the abstract:

Defamation is a moral and legal wrong that is distinct from the wrongs of insulting or offending a person, lying to a person, or unjustifiably causing emotional distress. Defamation essentially involves harm or injury to a person's reputation. And reputation is a social concept: It refers to a person's standing in some relevant audience, i.e., the group or community beyond the speaker and the person.

But from whose perspective must a statement be defamatory? This question has multiple dimensions. Is our only interest whether the person's standing is lowered in the eyes of the community? Or should we also consider the perspective of the person who claims to have been defamed? Must that person subjectively view the statement as injuring his or her own reputation? Are we also interested in the perspective of the speaker?

The perspective of the person's group or community is undoubtedly critical, but this prompts additional questions. If only a minority, or even a very small portion, of the community would lower their opinion of the person, while the majority would not, is that sufficient? Moreover, are these further questions descriptive inquiries into how (most, some, or a few) people would react, or instead normative evaluations of how (most, some, or a few) people should react? Or is the most defensible analysis a hybrid or combination of descriptive and normative features?

One possible approach to these questions about the defamatory character of a statement asks whether the statement might cause a reasonable person to lower their esteem of the person. But the reasonable person test is inadequate: It obscures critical questions, including the relative weight we should give to descriptive rather than normative perspectives, to subcommunities as opposed to larger communities, or to the varying perspectives of the plaintiff, the speaker, and the relevant community.

The most plausible approach, I will argue, is a largely descriptive perspective that focuses on the actual reactions of both the plaintiff and the subcommunity with which the plaintiff identifies. Defamation law should reject a purely normative perspective that considers only whether members of the community would be justified in lowering their esteem of the plaintiff if the false statement were true. People frequently criticize and even ostracize others for flimsy, irrational, or illegitimate reasons. Yet the resulting reputational injuries are real, and the conduct that causes them is often highly unjustifiable. However, courts should recognize a narrow normative exception and should exclude liability when providing a defamation remedy would contravene a significant public policy, such as the legal principles condemning discrimination on the basis of race or sexual preference.

Read more:

Journal of Free Speech Law: "Defamatory in Whose Eyes?," by Prof. Kenneth W. Simons - Reason

Australias eSafety Commissioner has dropped its Federal Court case against X relating to tweets distributing the footage of the Wakeley church stabbing.

In response to the decision, Xs owner, billionaire Elon Musk, tweeted freedom of speech is worth fighting for.

This case goes to a central question about the operation of Australias Online Safety Act and the powers of the regulator to remove harmful content.

It will no doubt be viewed with interest by other online safety regulators across the world who are also grappling with these issues. That is, how can governments control the distribution of harmful online material within a country when the internet is global? Do global takedowns unfairly limit free speech? Does geo-blocking strike an acceptable balance between restricting harmful content and free speech?

Read more: eSafety commissioner drops court effort to force Elon Musk to put international ban on stabbing video

In April, the eSafety Commissioner issued X with a removal notice instructing it to take all reasonable steps to take down videos of the stabbings. A central consideration in issuing the notice was that the New South Wales Commissioner of Police had described the stabbing as a terrorist incident.

X geo-blocked (blocking content depending on location) the video for Australian audiences but refused to impose a wider global ban. The eSafety Commissioner viewed this as a failure to abide by its removal notice, and commenced proceedings in the Federal Court.

A central question in the case was whether the geo-blocking of material to stop Australian users accessing the content constitutes the taking of all reasonable steps under the legislation when that material is globally available.

In a hearing before the Federal Court in May, the barrister for the Commissioner had stated that in order for X to take all reasonable steps there had to be a global ban. They pointed to the ease of buying a VPN (virtual private network) to avoid the domestic takedown.

The eSafety Commissioner cited the prudent use of public funds as one of the reasons for dropping the case, as it also has other litigation in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Although this is a legitimate consideration, it was also obvious the argument for a global ban on the material was a difficult one to make given that it would operate outside Australia.

While Musk has been calling this a victory, it is only the case for a global ban that has been dropped. The removal notice stands pending Xs review and it may very well be that the geo-blocking will remain. At least in Australia, posting a video of a stabbing may still be treated as beyond accepted community standards.

While the Online Safety Act allows for local authorities to issue an extraterritorial order, whether that extends to issuing a global ban is an open question. Even if a global order can be made under the act, it may not mean much in practice. Countries regulate free speech within their own jurisdictions and take their own position as to what is legitimate free speech and what is harmful content.

A court in another country may take a dim view of a global order and not enforce it in their jurisdiction. But another country may also decide to ban the content under their own laws.

Even though the Federal Court case has been discontinued, the regulation of social media in Australia continues to be a central focus of political and legal debate.

In addition to the litigation between the commissioner and X in other tribunals, there are two major reviews occurring in the next few months: a review of the Online Safety Act and a Parliamentary Inquiry into Social Media. These will examine some of the legal issues that would have been considered by the Federal Court, such as the regulation of harmful content disseminated over social media.

However, it would have been preferable to have a court ruling on these issues, particularly as there is uncertainty about key parts of the Online Safety Act.

Read more: Investigating social media harm is a good idea, but parliament is about to see how complicated it is to fix

Internationally, online safety is also being tested and debated in other countries. For instance, the UK Online Safety Act has been criticised for unduly limiting free speech. These are therefore matters calling for international cooperation.

Looking ahead, it is becoming increasingly apparent the power of tech companies is affecting the ability of safety regulators to constrain their activities. The Australian eSafety Commissioner described X as consistently non-compliant.

Whatever view is taken of the arguments made in the Federal Court case, the power wielded by tech companies and their ability to circumvent Australian law should be a central concern of the Australian government going forward.

Read more from the original source:

Elon Musk says he won a battle for free speech in court, but it won't stop the war for social media regulation - The Conversation

Were glad to know that numerous colleges are considering suspensions and expulsions for students who vandalized campuses and committed violence at graduation time this spring.

What took place at UCLA, Columbia University, MIT and elsewhere has been well publicized the setting up of encampments by student protestors, often relating to the desire to support Palestinians and rail against Israels efforts to stop Hamas terrorist acts.

Some would describe the protests as examples of free speech. From our perspective, however, they were violent acts showing disregard to law and campus rules.

Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation, recently wrote that School officials should not have waited as long as they did to call law enforcement, and the rioters who were not students, faculty or college staff should face charges. But administrators also should be considering suspensions and expulsions for students involved.

Campus riots are not anything new, but in the most recent examples of campus unrest dating to 2015 colleges were slow to respond to students and rioters who shouted down professors and invited lecturers. Middlebury College in Vermont is one example of a site where violent shout-downs took place.

Students regurgitated the Marxist slogans from critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as they de-platformed speakersand in some cases, college administrators did not punish students, Mr. Butcher wrote. Predictably, surveys over the last decade have found that many students are afraid to speak their minds on campus for fear of being canceled, shouted down or worse.

Blocking someone elses expressive rights is not a protected form of speech. Yet surveys have found that some on campus approved of violence in the face of ideas with which they disagree. In too many situations on campuses, the message to students was clear: You can be disruptive with minimal or no consequences.

Today, however, students have pushed the bounds even further, creating so much disturbance that some schools were forced to cancel classes and graduation ceremonies because campuses were not physically safe for anyone.

Had school personnel acted decisively during riots over the last 10 years, consistently suspending or expelling violent students, perhaps disrupters would have had second thoughts.

Mr. Butcher writes, State lawmakers should revisit their conduct codes and require public college administrators to involve law enforcement and consider suspension or expulsion when students destroy school property, injure others, violate free-speech protections or otherwise commit violence.

College educators must teach students the difference between free speech and violence. The former deserves protection. The latter should be met with consequences.

Read more:

College students must learn there's a difference between free speech and violence - Norfolk Daily News

On Tuesday at 7 p.m. Eastern/4 p.m. Pacific, the WSWS and International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC) are holding an online public meeting, From Wayne State to University of Californiaindustrial workers must oppose protest crackdowns. Register for the meeting here.

Thousands of students across the country and world have participated in protests on college campuses against the US-backed genocide in Gaza. The Biden administration has led a bipartisan police crackdown on campuses, which has resulted in more than 3,000 arrests nationwide. Meanwhile, universities have carried out academic interim suspensions as part of a two-pronged strategy to exert the maximum pressure and make an example out of protestors.

Interim suspensions are severe measures traditionally reserved for students who are a threat to the safety of others on campus. A student is academically suspended and immediately banned from all university property and facilities. Receiving an interim suspension often results in a domino effect that entails the loss of access to dorms, causing homelessness; loss of access to campus health centers and pharmacies; cutting off healthcare and prescription medication. In the case of foreign students their academic visas can be revoked, which may result in deportation since their immigration status is dependent upon being actively enrolled in a specific university.

The number of interim suspensions have skyrocketed in the last two months and are coupled with the denial of due process. While there have been dozens of campuses carrying out the punishing suspensions, there is a particular large concentration in the University of California system, where the crackdowns provoked strike action by academic workers. Walkouts are currently taking place at UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, and UCLA, with campuses in San Diego, Santa Barbara and Irvine joining the strike this week.

Last month, UC San Diego began issuing interim suspensions to students for simply being seen at the encampments. According to the UCSD Guardian, student and Assistant Vice President of the Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Leticia Guzman, received notice of an interim suspension on May 2. The previous person who held that position, Cristian Fuentes Hernandez, received notice of interim suspension soon after, on May 5.

The email notifying them of their suspensions explained that the university had obtained information that they were present at the encampment that violates university policy, and that, The information described above, if true, provides cause to believe that your continued presence at UC San Diego is reasonably likely to lead to physical harm to any person or property, threats of violence, conduct that threatens the health or safety of any person, or other disruptive activity incompatible with the orderly operation of the campus.

The following day, on May 6, around 200 police officers aggressively raided the encampment using pepper spray and arresting more than 60 people, 40 of whom were students. In making clear their endorsement of this police crackdown, UCSD Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla said, UC San Diego encourages and allows peaceful protests, but this encampment violated campus policy and the law, and grew to pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the campus community.

Immediately following this attack, UCSD announced that every one of the 40 students that were arrested would face an automatic interim suspension, in addition to the other interim suspensions quietly handed out to students for simply being present at the encampment. In contrast, only 16 interim suspensions were handed out all of last year.

The 60 arrested faced charges of unlawful assembly, with 39 charged with unauthorized encroachment on public land, 34 charged with resisting arrest, 17 charged for violating UC San Diego curfew laws, and four with camping on university property.

Sukham Sidhu, with The Office of Student Advocacy at UC San Diego, told the Los Angeles Times, You very rarely see these interim suspension casesThe only times Ive seen it imposed are in cases of physical assault. Sidhu noted that a number of interim suspensions did not relate to any arrests. The very first one I heard about, the student was just seen entering the encampment and theres no evidence they stayed there When I heard they were interim suspended for that, I was like, What?!

On May 8, UCI issued their first round of interim suspensions that banned students from all campus facilities including housing. The suspension notices referred to generic violations of university policy such as disruption, but none of them contained any specific allegations about any individual students behavior, according to a letter issued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last Friday to UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman.

The letter outlined the punitive issuance of interim suspension issued to students for having only administrative associations with clubs involved in the protests.

The University, on May 8, also imposed administrative holds upon recipients of the interim suspension notices for the student organizations, i.e., authorized signers for those organizations whose names appeared on student organization paperwork, casting doubt on their ability to continue in their academic programs and receive a degree until the holds are lifted.

On May 15, the UCI encampment was raided by police and more than 30 students and faculty were arrested. According to the ACLU letter, following this the University issued Penal Code 626.4 withdrawal of consent orders against some, but not all, of the more than 30 students, staff, and faculty who were arrested. Those orders banned students from returning to campus, including to their University housing, for either 7 or 14 days. On May 21, the University then issued another round of interim suspensions against students who were arrested on May 15, 2024.

Elliot Yu was among the dozens of UCI students arrested on May 15. In a video posted to the United Auto Workers (UAW) social media page, he described: For about six hours my wrists were cuffed in zip ties that were so tight they dug into my flesh and cut off circulation. My hands swelled up so much that when the police eventually tried to cut them off they struggled to fit the scissors in between my wrists and the cuffs.

Yu went on to describe his interim suspension, After I got out of jail I was told that I was banned from campus and my apartment. Since I live on campus, a campus ban acts as a same day eviction notice. Im not the only person who lost both their housing and the full function of their hands. This is only one example of how the UCs brutal response to peaceful protests has harmed hundreds of students and workers across the state.

The ACLU letter makes clear the interim suspensions are a dangerous attack on the democratic rights of students. Because the interim suspensions took effect prior to any hearing or other opportunity for students to respond to allegations against them, they fail to comport with the most basic due process requirements, the civil liberties organization states. This premature punishment is therefore likely to have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech rights on campus.

The University compounded the potential chill when it decided to rely upon the criminal legal system in addition to its own disciplinary mechanisms, by initially subjecting some students who were present at a May 15 protest to Penal Code 626.4 withdrawal of consent orders that ban them from every area of campus including even their own University housing before interim suspensions were issued. Finally, we are concerned by reports that several students have received administrative holds merely because their names were on student organization paperwork, and not because there are any allegations against them specifically. If true, these holds are punishing students for their association with student organizations and the viewpoints expressed by those organizations, in violation of federal and state free speech protections.

The assault on democratic rights is being directed by the Biden administration with the full support of the Republicans who are leading a witch-hunting campaign in the House Education Committee to smear protestors as antisemitic and pressuring officials to bring the full weight of the law against protesters. The universities have had no issue complying as the institutions serve the interests of Wall Street and are deeply integrated in the military intelligence apparatus.

The UC Regents and chancellors themselves represent administrators across all campuses who have longstanding and clear ties to military contractors, weapons manufacturers and intelligence agencies. Richard Leib, the current Chair of the UC Board of Regents, is a businessman with a long history in charter schools, consultancy, and military and intelligence agencies. He was an executive at US Public Technologies, which was acquired in 1999 by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, where he continued as an executive.

The UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering boasts the Contextual Robotics Institute, which is sponsored by Northrop Grumman, General Atomics, General Dynamics, SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command), Air Force Office of Scientific Research, US Army Research Laboratory, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US Department of Defense, US Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Office of Naval Research and Lockheed Martin.

Pradeep Khosla, UCSDs chancellor, previously worked with DARPA on the Senior Advisory Group for Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systemsalso known as drones. In 2016, Khosla joined the executive board of Avigilon Corporation of Vancouver, a leading company using facial recognition and body movement technology to help police identify suspects.

In 2016, the UC Board of Regents, which at that time was led by Janet Napolitano, ex-chief of Homeland Security under Obama, sanctioned a secret spyware system capable of monitoring and collecting data from all individuals within the networks of the ten UC campuses and five medical centers throughout California.

At the time, the WSWS warned, Napolitano and the UCOP insist that the aggregated data [from the spyware system] will not be used for non-security purposes. However, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which student protests and strikes for higher wages are easily categorized as security purposes by the UC administration. Additionally, the security policy makes an exception to disclose the personal data for those considered to be engaged in illegal activity.

The university system is a key player in the military intelligence apparatus and Wall Street. UCs deep connections to war abroad and repression at home explains why they have played such a central role in the political assault on free speech and democratic rights.

Student demands for university divestment from the US and Israeli war machines are certainly legitimate. But the fact remains that protests isolated to the campuses and appeals to the powers that be cannot stop the genocide in Gaza and the even more horrific wars for global domination by US imperialism, including with nuclear armed Russia and China.

For that the working class must directly intervene. The UC strike is an important step forward in the entry of the working class as political force to stop war and repression. But the strike is being sabotaged by the United Auto Workers bureaucracy, which is aligned with the Biden administration and is doing everything it can to isolate and wear down the UC strikers.

Academic workers, graduate, undergraduate students and faculty must build their own Rank-and-File Strike Committees to shut down the entire UC system, and appeal to all UAW members and all workers to carry out collective action to halt the assault on students and stop the war. This includes strike action by members of the UAW, the International Association of Machinists and unions at automotive, defense and other industrial factories.

Join the fight for socialism

Continued here:

A chilling effect on the exercise of free speech rights: University of California issues vindictive interim suspensions to ... - WSWS

Stanford University scholars recently recommitted themselves to the principles of free speech and freedom of expression in a new statement that updates, reaffirms and complements a Statement on Academic Freedom first passed 50 years ago, in 1974, according to the Stanford Report.

The move comes thanks in part to the work of an Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech, formed last year to address several free speech and academic freedom controversies at the school, including a Protected Identity Harm reporting system deemed Orwellian by many observers and a13-page Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative discouraging the use of more than 125 mostly innocuous words, includingAmerican.

In 2022, longtime Stanford Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya declaredacademic freedom is dead in retelling how his institution systematically abandoned him for his contrarian views on COVID. The elite institution also made headlines after a mob of students, aided by a DEI dean at the time, shouted down a federal judge during a guest lecture in 2023. Most recently, the school has been plagued with accusations of rampant antisemitism.

The school continues to be embroiled in controversies. For example, more than one third of Stanford University students say using physical violence to stop a speech is acceptable in at least some circumstances, according to a survey released earlier this year.

The Faculty Senate, after much debate, approved last week a statement that aims to address some of those problems.

The freedom to explore and present new, unconventional, and even unpopular ideas is essential to the academic mission of the university; therefore, Stanford shall promote the widest possible freedom of expression, consistent with the universitys legal and moral obligations to prevent harassment and discrimination. Accordingly, university policies must not censor individuals speech based on the content of what is expressed, except in narrow circumstances, it reads in part.

At the same time, Stanfords educational role as well as its academic and legal obligations differ across locations and contexts on campus, such as spaces open to all community members, classrooms, and dormitories. Community members also have varying privileges and responsibilities in different contexts, it adds.

Likewise, legal rights and obligations pertain in different ways to community members depending on whether they are acting as students, teachers, staff, or faculty members. The principles of freedom of speech and expression will be understood in light of these variations across contexts and roles. The campus disruption policy furnishes an example of how some of these distinctions may be drawn.

The free speech statement is non-binding, as scholars had talked it down from a policy, according to the Stanford Report.

The Faculty Senate also approved an Institutional Statements Policy, which calls for institutional restraint in making statements and aims to prevent the establishment of institutional orthodoxy that might chill dissent, the Stanford Report added.

The policy, which applies to leadership, vice provosts, and deans, among others, states that when speaking for the institution, Stanford University leaders and administrators should not express an opinion on political and social controversies, unless these matters directly affect the mission of the university or implicate its legal obligations.

MORE: Embattled Stanford Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya: Academic freedom is dead

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read more from the original source:

For first time in 50 years, Stanford faculty approve free speech statement - The College Fix

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday for two lawsuits about how social media giants should or should not be able to regulate speech on their platforms. Chief justices went back and forth with state solicitors general and their opposing party, making what may seem like far-fetched comparisons between social media and everything from bookstores to parade organizers and wedding planners.

Facebook's 2016 election problems will be the same in 2024 | What's Next for Meta?

The two cases in question one from Florida, one from Texas were brought by NetChoice, a trade association that represents social media sites like Metas Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and more. NetChoice said two state laws in Florida and Texas that ban companies from censoring content on their platforms are actually forms of censorship themselves. Paul Clement, the attorney for NetChoice, argued that the laws violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, forcing platforms to host posts that violate their policies.

At the heart of NetChoices argument is that social media platforms are like newspapers, so editorializing content is their First Amendment right.

But Florida solicitor general Henry Whitaker said social media is more like a telephone company (pdf): If Verizon asserted a First Amendment right to cancel disfavored subscribers at a whim, that claim would fail.

The design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech not to enable it. That is why the telephone company and the delivery service have no First Amendment right to use their services as a chokepoint to silence those they disfavor, he said.

Texas solicitor general Aaron Nielson had a similar argument (pdf), but likened social media to a public square. [I]f platforms that passively host the speech of billions of people are themselves the speakers and can discriminate, there will be no public square to speak of.

One concern of chief justice Amy Coney Barrett is that the state laws would consider algorithms to be editors, meaning that states could ban how algorithms are applied by online sites or other businesses that sell content. Florida solicitor general Whitaker said algorithms are just a means of sites organizing content, not editorializing it.

That led to more concern, though. Could Florida enact a law telling bookstores that they have to put everything out by alphabetical order? Coney Barrett asked.

Whitaker said, no, the state laws prevent social media sites from censorship, not how they organize their content.

But NetChoices Clement argued that algorithms are editors: These algorithms dont spring from the ether. They are essentially computer programs designed by humans to try to do some of this editorial function. That means that a Supreme Court ruling allowing the state laws to remain would open the door for lawsuits against how algorithms function.

Were not quite sure who it covers, chief justice Ketanji Brown told Whitaker about the Florida law.

So Whitaker said the Florida law would apply to sites like Etsy and Uber, meaning those sites couldnt ban user-generated content unless they provide thorough rationale. Meanwhile, Nielson said the Texas state law, which is narrower than Floridas in scope, wouldnt apply to platforms outside of classic social media sites.

Read the original here:

How Supreme Court arguments over social media laws and free speech defined social media itself - Quartz

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in two cases related to some of the worlds biggest social media platforms.

Considered by many to be two of the hottest free speech cases of the internet age, one case is from Texas, the other from Florida. And though there are slight differences between the two state laws being challenged here, the cases appear to center on a central question: do social media companies have the right to independently decide what content appears on their platforms, amplifying or removing content as they see fit?

The social media companies say their First Amendment free speech rights are being violated with the Texas and Florida laws. The states say those social media companies arent entitled to First Amendment free speech protection. And it may come down to whether a majority of the court sees social media as more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company.

Charles Rocky Rhodes, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said both of these laws are on hold and have not yet gone into effect because of pending court cases.

They were a response to some of the social media platforms de-platforming Donald Trump and other politicians in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Rhodes said. And there was a concern from Texas and from Florida that [these politicians] were being targeted because of their conservative beliefs.

And so the idea of both of these laws was to try to keep social media platforms from banning individuals or discriminating against individuals based on the viewpoints of their speech. And it also placed some very onerous burdens on social media companies with respect to disclosure requirements of their terms and their policies with respect to data management and content, and the use policies that they would be using.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

The plaintiff in the case is NetChoice, an industry association that includes most of the big platforms we all think of Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, etc.

Theyre making the play that when they are deciding which messages to amplify and which messages that they want to remove from their platform, that they are acting as the modern editor of a newspaper, and there are good precedent for the United States Supreme Court saying that a state cant tell a newspaper what to print, Rhodes said.

Theyre arguing that the same principle applies to them, that they are allowed to make editorial decisions on their private platform. And this is something that people have to keep in mind that the social media companies, as big and important as they are, are not the government. They are actually privately-owned.

Texas and Florida, however, say these companies are acting as a common carrier and therefore do not have a claim to free speech.

Theyre trying to say that social media companies are a modern equivalent of what used to be a very familiar idea of the common carrier, that they dont have the ability to discriminate with respect to their service. They have to accept everyone, Rhodes said. And the social media companies come back and say, well, common carriers were different because they never engaged in their own expressive activities.

Common carriers did sometimes transmit the speech of others, like a telegraph would be the old example, or telephone But they did not actually engage in their own expressive activities. And the social media companies are claiming that we do because we are trying to communicate messages. Were creating news feeds for individuals. Were trying to increase, of course, advertising streams that we are engaged in expressive activities in a way that your internet service provider or in a way that your telephone company is not.

As this case goes forward, Rhodes said the states arguments are rooted in political ideology.

The Texas law has a specific exemption for companies under 50 million users. So it wouldnt cover conservative sites like Parler, he said. The Florida law had exemptions for Disney and for Universal that were then taken out once Disney and Universal started criticizing Florida [political leaders]. A big part of the underlying motivation for these laws was the political concern that conservatives thought that their voices were being removed from the site and the marketplace of ideas.

View original post here:

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms - Texas Standard

On Tuesday, Columbia Engineering and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University co-hosted a well-attended symposium, Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse. The event combined presentations about technical research relevant to the subject with addresses and panels discussing the implications of AI for democracy and civil society.

While a range of topics were covered across three keynotes, a series of seed funding presentations, and two panelsone on empirical and technological questions and a second on legal and philosophical questionsa number of notable recurring themes emerged, some by design and others more organically:

This event was part of one partnership amongst others in an effort that Columbia University president Manouche Shafik and engineering school dean Shih-Fu Chang referred to as AI+x, where the school is seeking to engage with various other parts of the university outside of computer engineering to better explore the potential impacts of current developments in artificial intelligence. (This event was also a part of Columbias Dialogue Across Difference initiative, which was established as part of a response to campus conflict around the Israel-Gaza conflict.) From its founding, the Knight Institute has focused on how new technologies affect democracy, requiring collaboration with experts in those technologies.

Speakers on the first panel highlighted sectors where they have already seen potential for positive societal impact of AI, outside of the speech issues that the symposium was focussed on. These included climate science, drug discovery, social work, and creative writing. Columbia engineering professor Carl Vondrick suggested that current large language models are optimized for social media and search, a legacy of their creation by corporations that focus on these domains, and the panelists noted that only by working directly with diverse groups can their needs for more customized models be understood. Princeton researcher Arvind Narayanan proposed that domain experts play a role in evaluating models as, in his opinion, the current approach of benchmarking using standardized tests is seriously flawed.

During the conversation between Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight Institute, and Harvard Kennedy School security technologist Bruce Schneier, general principles for successful interdisciplinary work were discussed, like humility, curiosity and listening to each other; gathering early in the process; making sure everyone is taken seriously; and developing a shared vocabulary to communicate across technical, legal, and other domains. Jaffer recalled that some proposals have a lot more credibility in the eyes of policymakers when they are interdisciplinary. Cornell Tech law professor James Grimmelman, who specializes in helping lawyers and technologists understand each other, remarked that these two groups are particularly well-equipped to work together, once they can figure out what the other needs to know.

President Shafik declared that if a responsible approach to AIs impact on society requires a +x, Columbia (surely along with other large research universities) has lots of xs. This positions universities as ideal voices for the public good, to balance out the influence of the tech industry that is developing and controlling the new generation of large language models.

Stanfords Tatsunori Hashimoto, who presented his work on watermarking generative AI text outputs, emphasized that the vendors of these models are secretive, and so the only way to develop a public technical understanding of them is to build them within the academy, and take on the same tasks as the commercial engineers, like working on alignment fine-tuning and performing independent evaluations. One relevant and striking finding by his group was that the reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process tends to push models towards the more liberal opinions common amongst highly-educated Americans.

The engineering panel developed a wishlist of infrastructure resources that universities (and others outside of the tech industry) need to be able to study how AI can be used to benefit and not harm society, such as compute resources, common datasets, separate syntax models so that vetted content datasets can be added for specific purposes, and student access to models. In the second panel, Camille Franois, a lecturer at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs and presently a senior director of trust & safety at Niantic Labs, highlighted the importance of having spaces, presumably including university events such as the one at Columbia, to discuss how AI developments are impacting civil discourse. On a critical note, Knight Institute executive director Katy Glenn Bass also pointed out that universities often do not value cross-disciplinary work to the same degree as typical research, and this is an obstacle to progress in this area, given how essential collaboration across disciplines is.

Proposals for regulation were made throughout the symposium, a number of which are listed below, but the keynote by Bruce Schneier was itself an argument for government intervention. Schneiers thesis was, in brief, that corporation-controlled development of generative AI has the potential to undermine the trust that society needs to thrive, as chatbot assistants and other AI systems may present as interpersonally trustworthy, but in reality are essentially designed to drive profits for corporations. To restore trust, it is incumbent on governments to impose safety regulations, much as they do for airlines. He proposed a regulatory agency for the AI and robotics industry, and the development of public AI models, created under political accountability and available for academic and new for-profit uses, enabling a freer market for AI innovation.

Specific regulatory suggestions included:

A couple of cautions were also voiced: Narayanan warned that the Liars Dividend could be weaponized by authoritarian governments to crack down on free expression, and Franois noted the focus on watermarking and deepfakes at the expense of unintended harms, such as chatbots giving citizens incorrect voting information.

There was surprisingly little discussion during the symposium of how generative AI specifically influences public discourse, which Jaffer defined in his introductory statement as acts of speaking and listening that are part of the process of democracy and self-governance. Rather, much of the conversation was about online speech generally, and how it can be influenced by this technology. As such, an earlier focus of online speech debates, social media, came up a number of times, with clear parallels in terms of concern over corporate control and a need for transparency.

Hashimoto referenced the notion that social media causes feedback loops that greatly amplify certain opinions. LLMs can develop data feedback loops which may cause a similar phenomenon that is very difficult to identify and unpick without substantial research. As chatbots become more personalized, suggested Vondrick, they may also create feedback on an individual user level, directing them to more and more of the type of content that they have already expressed an affinity for, akin to the social media filter bubble hypothesis.

Another link to social media was drawn in the last panel, during which both Grimmelmann and Franois drew on their expertise in content moderation. They agreed that the most present danger to discourse from generative AI is inauthentic content and behavior overwhelming the platforms that we rely on, and worried that we may not yet have the tools and infrastructure to counter it. (Franois described a key tension between the Musk effect pushing disinvestment in content moderation and the Brussels effect encouraging a ramping up in on-platform enforcement via the DSA.) At the same time, trust and safety approaches like red-teaming and content policy development are proving key to developing LLMs responsibly. The correct lesson to draw from the failures to regulate social media, proposed Grimmelmann, was the danger of giving up on antitrust enforcement, which could be of great value when current AI foundation models are developed and controlled by a few (and in several cases the same) corporations.

One final theme was a framing of the current moment as one of transition. Even though we are grappling with how to adapt to realistic, readily available synthetic content at scale, there will be a point in the future, perhaps even for todays young children, that this will be intuitively understood and accounted for, or at least that media literacy education, or tools (like watermarking) will have caught up.

Several speakers referenced prior media revolutions. Narayanan was one of several who discussed the printing press, pointing out that even this was seen as a crisis of authority: no longer could the written word be assumed to be trusted. Wikipedia was cited by Columbia Engineering professor Kathy McKeown as an example of media that was initially seen as untrustworthy, but whose benefits, shortcomings, and suitable usage are now commonly understood. Franois noted that use of generative AI is far from binary and that we have not yet developed good frameworks to evaluate the range of applications. Grimmelman mentioned both Wikipedia and the printing press as examples of technologies where no one could have accurately predicted how things would shake out in the end.

As the Knight Institutes Glenn Bass stated explicitly, we should not assume that generative AI is harder to work through than previous media crises, or that we are worse equipped to deal with it. However, two speakers flagged that the tech industry should not be the given free rein: USC Annenbergs Mike Ananny warned that those with invested interests may attempt to prematurely push for stabilization and closure, and we should treat this with suspicion; and Princetons Narayanan noted that this technology is producing a temporary societal upheaval and that its costs should be distributed fairly. Returning to perhaps the dominant takeaways from the event, these comments again implied a role for the academy and for the government in guiding the development of, adoption of, and adaptation to the emerging generation of generative AI.

Read more:

Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse: Why the Academy Must Step Forward | TechPolicy.Press - Tech Policy Press

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases that could fundamentally change how social media platforms moderate content online. The justices will consider the constitutionality of laws introduced by Texas and Florida targeting what they see as the censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media platforms.

The central issue is whether platforms like Facebook and X should have sole discretion over what content is permitted on their platforms. A decision is expected by June.USC experts are available to discuss.

Depending on the ruling, companies may face stricter regulations or be allowed more autonomy in controlling their online presence. Tighter restrictions would require marketers to exercise greater caution in content creation and distribution, prioritizing transparency, and adherence to guidelines to avoid legal repercussions. Alternatively, a ruling in favor of greater moderation powers could potentially raise consumer concerns about censorship and brand authenticity, said Kristen Schiele, an associate professor of clinical marketing at the USC Marshall School of Business.

Regardless of the verdict, companies will need to adapt their strategies to align with advancing legal standards and consumer expectations in the digital landscape. Stricter regulations will require a more thorough screening of content to ensure compliance. Marketers may need to invest more resources to understand and adhere to the evolving legislations, which would lead to shifts in budget allocation and strategy development. In response, the industry will most likely see new content moderation technologies and platforms emerge to help companies navigate legal challenges and still create effective marketing campaigns, she said.

Erin Miller is an expert on theories of speech and free speech rights, and especially their application to mass media. She also writes on issues of moral and criminal responsibility. Her teaching areas include First Amendment theory and criminal procedure. Miller is an assistant professor of law at the USC Gould School of Law.

Content:emiller@law.usc.edu

###

Jef Pearlman is a clinical associate professor of law and director of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic at the USC Gould School of Law.

Contact:jef@law.usc.edu

###

Karen Northis a recognized expert in the field of digital and social media, with interests spanning personal and corporate brand building, digital election meddling, reputation management, product development, and safety and privacy online. North is a clinical professor of communication at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Contact:knorth@usc.edu

###

Wendy Wood is an expert in the nature of habits. Wood co-authored a study exploring how fake news spreads on social media, which found that platforms more than individual users have a larger role to play in stopping the spread of misinformation online.

Contact:wendy.wood@usc.edu

###

Emilio Ferrara is an expert incomputational social sciences who studies socio-technical systems and information networks to unveil the communication dynamics that govern our world. Ferrara isis a professor of computer science and communication at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Contact:emiliofe@usc.edu

###

(Photo/Benjamin Sow/Unsplash)

See original here:

Supreme Court to hear landmark case on social media, free speech - University of Southern California

Since Hamas Oct. 7 attacks inside Israel and U.S. support for the resulting war in Gaza, protests and rallies have sprouted at college campuses across the U.S.

Tempers have flared, and tensions have risen.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAm%92E :?4=F56D 2 C:D6 😕 C6A@CED @7 2?E:D6>:E:D>[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 p?E:s672>2E:@? {628F6[ H9:49 D2H 2 be`T C:D6 😕 2?E:y6H:D9 :?4:56?ED 7C@> ~4E] f E@ y2?] f 4@>A2C65 E@ 2 J62C 28@]k^Am

kAm%96 r@F?4:= @? p>6C:42?xD=2>:4 #6=2E:@?D Wrpx#X 2=D@ D2H 2 `fgT :?4C62D6 😕 C6A@CED @7 2?E:|FD=:> 2?5 2?E:!2=6DE:?:2? :?4:56?ED 24C@DD E96 &]$] 5FC:?8 E96 =2DE E9C66 >@?E9D @7 a_ab]k^Am

kAm(2C AC@E6DED 2?5 :?46?5:2CJ C96E@C:4 @? 42>AFD6D 92G6 2=D@ DA2C<65 ?6H 5632E6D 2?5 E6?D:@?D @G6C E96 =2?5D42A6 7@C 7C66 DA6649[ H96? E92E DA6649 4C@DD6D =682= =:?6D 2?5 E96 7FEFC6 @7 5:DD6?E @? 42>AFD6D]k^Am

A pro-Israel demonstrator shouts at Palestinian supporters during a protest at Columbia University, Oct. 12, 2023, in New York. More than 40 U.S. colleges and universities face federal investigations for shared ancestry discrimination under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the wake of anti-war and anti-Israel protests on campus.

kAmkDEC@?8mq&|!* {p}s$rp!tk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAm%96 4FCC6?E =2?5D42A6 😀 3F>AJ] %96 xDC26=w2>2D H2C 😀 ;FDE E96 =2E6DE 6I2>A=6 E92E 92D 82=G2?:K65 5:D4FDD:@? 2?5 5:DAFE6D 23@FE E96 =:>:ED @? 7C66 DA6649 😕 @FC 9:89=J A@=2C:K65 D@4:6EJ[ D2:5 y2?6 z:CE=6J[ 2 AC@76DD@C @7 >65:2 6E9:4D 2?5 =2H 2E E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |:??6D@E2D wF332C5 $49@@= @7 y@FC?2=:D> 2?5 |2DD r@>>F?:42E:@?]k^Am

kAmuC66 DA6649 25G@42E6D H@CCJ 23@FE F?:G6CD:EJ 25>:?:DEC2E@CD[ 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D @G6CD66:?8 AF3=:4 4@==686D 2?5 H62=E9J 5@?@CD DBF6=49:?8 DA6649 E96J 5@?E =:<6 :? E9:D 42D6[ G:6HD @? E96 H2C[ xDC26=[ !2=6DE:?6 2?5 &]$] A@=:4J]k^Am

kAm(92E H6C6 724:?8 ?@H 😀 E92E 8@G6C?>6?E @77:4:2=D DE2E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D[ DE2E6 =68:D=2E@CD 2C6 4@?E6>A=2E:?8 ECJ:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E @A:?:@?D H:E9 H9:49 E96J 5:D28C66] %9:D 😀 2 AC@3=6> 7@C 6G6CJ@?6[ z:CE=6J D2:5] ~?46 H6 @A6? E96 5@@C E@ 2==@H:?8 E96 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E6== FD H92E E9@F89ED 2C6?E 2446AE23=6[ H6 CF? E96 C:D< E92E[ :? E96 7FEFC6[ :562D H:E9 H9:49 H6 28C66 4@F=5 36 DFAAC6DD65[ 2D H6==]k^Am

kAmw2=6J v=F92?:49[ AC@8C2> @77:46C 7@C 42>AFD C:89ED 25G@424J 7@C E96 u@F?52E:@? 7@C x?5:G:5F2= #:89ED 2?5 tIAC6DD:@? Wux#tX[ 92D D66? 2? :?4C62D6 😕 42==D 7C@> DEF56?ED[ 724F=EJ 2?5 DE277 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ D:?46 E96 DE2CE @7 E96 w@=J {2?5 H2C]k^Am

kAm(6 2C6 D66:?8 6G6?ED 36:?8 42?46=65] (6 2C6 D66:?8 DEF56?E @C82?:K2E:@?D 36:?8 56492CE6C65] (6 2C6 D66:?8 DEF56?ED 2?5 724F=EJ >6>36CD 86EE:?8 5:D4:A=:?65 7@C D@4:2= >65:2 A@DED 7@C D@>6 4@>>6?ED >256 😕 4=2DD[ v=F92?:49 D2:5]k^Am

kAm$96 D2:5 ux#t 92D C646:G65 4@>A=2:?ED 24C@DD E96 4@?E6?E:@FD A@=:E:42= DA64ECF>] xE 😀 AC6EEJ 6BF2=] r@?D6CG2E:G6D 2?5 =:36C2=D H6 2C6 D66:?8 3@E9 @7 E96> 92G:?8 E96:C DA6649 C6DEC:4E65[ v=F92?:49 D2:5]k^Am

kAm$96 D2:5 E92E 92D :?4=F565 F?:G6CD:E:6D :>A@D:?8 9:89 :?DFC2?46 C6BF:C6>6?ED[ ECJ:?8 E@ >@G6 4@?EC@G6CD:2= 6G6?ED @?=:?6 @C E@ >@C6 C6>@E6 =@42E:@?D 2?5 4:E:?8 D64FC:EJ 4@?46C?D 😕 C6DEC:4E:?8 46CE2:? DA62<6CD 2?5 8C@FAD]k^Am

kAmz:CE=6J 2?5 v=F92?:49 C6:?7@C465 E96 :562 E92E AF3=:4 9:896C 65F42E:@? :?DE:EFE:@?D 2C6 6DA64:2==J 3@F?5 E@ u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D 2?5 >FDE 2G@:5 5:D4C:>:?2E:?8 282:?DE 46CE2:? G:6HA@:?ED] %92E :?4=F56D 92E6 DA6649 E92E 42? 36 5:D4@>7@CE:?8]k^Am

kAm|2?J A6@A=6 5@?E C62=:K6 E92E 92E6 DA6649 H9:49 5@6D?E 92G6 2 4=62C 567:?:E:@? 😀 AC@E64E65 F?56C E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E] %9:D 😀 G6CJ :>A@CE2?E[ 3642FD6[ 2D 2 86?6C2= CF=6[ C6DEC:4E:@?D @? DA6649 E92E 2C6 G:6HA@:?E32D65 2C6 5:D72G@C65 F?56C @FC 7C66 DA6649 ;FC:DACF56?46]k^Am

kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE 92D C64@8?:K65 E92E E96 8@G6C?>6?E 42??@E 5:4E2E6 H92E 😀 @CE9@5@I 😕 E9@F89E @C DA6649[ z:CE=6J D2:5]k^Am

kAm$A6649 E92E :?4:E6D G:@=6?46 2?5 DA64:7:4 E9C62ED[ 9@H6G6C[ 5@6D ?@E 6?;@J u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D]k^Am

American colleges have become places of anguish, with Jewish and other pro-Israel students condemning the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, while Muslim and progressive students are pressing for recognition of suffering by Palestinians in Gaza.

kAmkDEC@?8m$%&st}%$ (p}% %~ utt{ $putk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAm$9:C2 v@@5>2?[ D6?:@C 5:C64E@C @7 25G@424J 7@C ps{[ D2:5 AF3=:4 4@==686D 92G6 E96 =682= C:89E E@ C6DA@?D:3=J C68F=2E6 DA6649 2?5 E@ AC@E64E DEF56?ED 2?5 DE277 7C@> 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[ 92C2DD>6?E 2?5 9@DE:=6 65F42E:@?2= 6?G:C@?>6?ED F?56C %:E=6 'x @7 E96 `hec r:G:= #:89ED p4E]k^Am

kAm%96 8@G6C?>6?E 92D E96 C:89E E@ 92G6 E:>6[ A=246 2?5 >2??6C C6DEC:4E:@?D[ A6C>:EE:?8 C6BF:C6>6?ED[ E:>6 C6DEC:4E:@?D[ D96 D2:5] (6 H2?E E9@D6 E9:?8D 6?7@C465 6BF2==J]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? D2:5 6G6? AC@E64E65 DA6649 42? CF? :?E@ :DDF6D 😕 65F42E:@?2= D6EE:?8D C646:G:?8 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 F?56C %:E=6 'x] x E9:?< H6 7@C86E E92E E96C6 :D E96 A@DD:3:=:EJ E92E 6G6? AC@E64E65 DA6649 42? 4C62E6 2 9@DE:=6 6?G:C@?>6?E] x E9:?< E92ED :>A@CE2?E[ v@@5>2? D2:5]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? D2:5 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 2?5 DE277 92G6 G@:465 4@?46C?D 23@FE A6CD@?2= D276EJ 2E D49@@=D 2?5 65F42E:@?2= H@C 2?5 492=<:?8 :?G@=G:?8 DH2DE:<2D 2?5 @E96C 92E67F= DJ>3@=D 2?5 D=@82?D]k^Am

kAm~FC =682= 42== =:?6D E96JG6 8@EE6? 9F?5C65D @7 42==D 24C@DD F?:G6CD:E:6D[ D96 D2:5] $@>6 @7 E9@D6 >:89E C6DF=E 😕 =:E:82E:@?] r=2:>D 2C6 36:?8 7:=65 H:E9 E96 s~t]k^Am

kAmp &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 t5F42E:@? DA@<6DA6CD@? C676CC65 BF6DE:@?D 23@FE 2 A@DE~4E] f C:D6 :? 92C2DD>6?E %:E=6 'x 4@>A=2:?ED E@ 2 }@G6>36C AC6DD C6=62D6 😕 H9:49 E96 q:56? 25>:?:DEC2E:@? D2:5 :E H@F=5 DE2CE C6=62D:?8 E96 ?2>6D @7 :?DE:EFE:@?D F?56C :?G6DE:82E:@? 7@C A@E6?E:2= 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? 32D65 @? D92C65 2?46DECJ]k^Am

kAm$:?46 E96 w2>2D 2EE24@C6 E92? c_ 4@==686D 2?5 F?:G6CD:E:6D E92E 2C6 36:?8 :?G6DE:82E65 7@C A@E6?E:2= D92C65 2?46DECJ 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?]k^Am

kAm%96 :?G6DE:82E:@? =:DE :?4=F56D D49@@=D H96C6 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 92G6 G@:465 D276EJ 4@?46C?D 5FC:?8 2?E:H2C AC@E6DED[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r@@A6C &?:@?[ r@C?6== &?:G6CD:EJ[ r@=F>3:2 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 }6H $49@@= 😕 }6H *@C<[ E96 F?:G6CD:E:6D @7 %2>A2 2?5 $@FE9 u=@C:52[ w2CG2C5 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED x?DE:EFE6 @7 %649?@=@8J]k^Am

kAm%96 s~t =:DE 2=D@ :?4=F56D @E96C xGJ {628F6 2?5 6=:E6 D49@@=D W:?4=F5:?8 *2=6[ $E2?7@C5[ y@9?D w@A<:?D 2?5 qC@H?X[ D6G6C2= q:8 %6? D49@@=D W:?4=F5:?8 |:49:82?[ ~9:@ $E2E6[ #FE86CD[ }@CE9H6DE6C?[ x?5:2?2q=@@>:?8E@?[ |:??6D@E2%H:? r:E:6D 2?5 (:D4@?D:?|25:D@?X[ 2D H6== 2D |@?E2?2 $E2E6 &?:G6CD:EJ 2?5 E96 F?:G6CD:E:6D @7 }@CE9 r2C@=:?2r92A6= w:== 2?5 (2D9:?8E@?]k^Am

kAmp ?F>36C @7 D49@@=D 4@?E24E65 7@C E9:D DE@CJ 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ C6BF6DED E@ 4@>>6?E 23@FE 9@H E96J 2C6 92?5=:?8 AC@E6DED[ 7C66 DA6649 2?5 D276EJ 4@?46C?D] ~77:4:2=D 2E ~9:@ $E2E6 2?5 (:D4@?D:?|25:D@? C676CC65 E@ E96:C DA6649 A@=:4:6D DFAA@CE:?8 2 7C66 6I492?86 @7 :562D 2?5 5:776C:?8 @A:?:@?D]k^Am

kAm(6 92G6 366? 8F:565 3J EH@ =@?8DE2?5:?8 AC:?4:A=6Di ~9:@ $E2E6 😀 4@>>:EE65 E@ 6?DFC:?8 7C665@> @7 DA6649 2?5 6IAC6DD:@? @? @FC 42>AFD[ 2?5 ~9:@ $E2E6 92D ?6G6C 2?5 H:== ?6G6C E@=6C2E6 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? @C 92C2DD>6?E @7 2?J@?6 32D65 @? E96:C C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D[ ?2E:@?2=:EJ @C :56?E:EJ] p==682E:@?D @7 E9C62ED[ 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? @C 92C2DD>6?E 2C6 :?G6DE:82E65 3J @FC ~77:46 @7 x?DE:EFE:@?2= tBF:EJ[ D2:5 q6? y@9?D@?[ 2? ~9:@ $E2E6 DA@<6DA6CD@?]k^Am

kAmv@@5>2? H2?ED D49@@=D E@ 5@ >@C6 E@ >2<6 DFC6 DEF56?ED :DEC62E>6?E 2?5 E@ 36 >@C6 EC2?DA2C6?E 23@FE E96:C A@=:4:6D 2?5 A@DE ~4E] f 492?86D 27E6C E96 AC6D:56?ED @7 w2CG2C5[ |x% 2?5 E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 !6??DJ=G2?:2 42>6 F?56C 7:C6 7@C =F<6H2C> 2?DH6CD 5FC:?8 2 4@?8C6DD:@?2= 962C:?8 C6=2E65 E@ 86?@4:52= C96E@C:4]k^Am

kAm$EF56?ED H2?E E@ 766= D276[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

Jewish Rutgers University students and community members hold a vigil in support of Israel on Oct. 25, 2023, in New Brunswick, N.J..

kAmkDEC@?8m%wx$ x$ }t)% {t't{k^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmr@C6J $2J=@C[ C6D62C49 2?5 25G@424J 5:C64E@C 7@C rpx#[ 😀 G6CJ 4@?46C?65 E92E D@>6 @7 E96 24E:@?D 36:?8 E2<6? @? 4@==686 42>AFD6D 2C6 2:>65 2E DFAAC6DD:?8 AC@!2=6DE:?:2? G:6HA@:?ED]k^Am

kAm%9:D 😀 ?6IE =6G6=[ $2J=@C D2:5 @7 E96 D6?E:>6?ED 2?5 AFD96D 282:?DE AC@!2=6DE:?:2? 2?5 2?E:H2C G@:46D[ H9:49 92G6 46?E6C65 @? 4@==686 42>AFD6D] %96 E2C86E:?8 @7 DEF56?ED 2?5 A6@A=6 😕 E96:C H@C

kAm$2J=@C A@:?ED E@ 8C@FAD H9@ 92G6 AF3=:4:K65 E96 ?2>6D @7 DEF56?ED[ @C82?:K2E:@?D[ 724F=EJ 2?5 6>A=@J66D H9@ 92G6 G@:465 @AA@D:E:@? E@ E96 H2C 2?5 &]$] A@=:4:6D]k^Am

kAmx? E6C>D @7 E92E[ H6 92G6?E D66? 2?JE9:?8 =:<6 H92E H6 2C6 H:E?6DD:?8 C:89E ?@H[ $2J=@C D2:5]k^Am

kAm%9@D6 @? E96 @E96C D:56 @7 E96 :DDF6 4@?E6?5 D@>6 2?E:xDC26= C96E@C:4 92D 4C@DD65 E96 =:?6 :?E@ 2?E:D6>:E:D>]k^Am

kAmv=F92?:49 2?5 z:CE=6J 2=D@ H2?E 4@==686D E@ C6G:D:E 2?5[ 😕 D@>6 :?DE2?46D[ 5:E49 D@42==65 DA6649 4@56D 2?5 9@H D49@@=D 92?5=6 4@>A=2:?ED H:E9 2 7@4FD @? >2:?E2:?:?8 7C665@> @7 6IAC6DD:@?]k^Am

kAm%96J 2=D@ H@CCJ 23@FE H62=E9J 5@?@CD 6DA64:2==J 2E AC:G2E6 D49@@=D H9@ 2C6?E 2D 3@F?5 E@ E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 2D E96:C AF3=:4 4@F?E6CA2CED AC6DDFC:?8 25>:?:DEC2E@CD E@ 46?D@C DA6649 E96J 5@?E =:<6 27E6C E96 C6D:8?2E:@?D @7 E96 AC6D:56?ED @7 !6?? 2?5 w2CG2C5 27E6C E96:C 4@?8C6DD:@?2= E6DE:>@?J]k^Am

Pro-Palestinian protesters argue with a pro-Israel demonstrator during a protest at Columbia University in New York. Jewish students across the country worry about safety and a rise in antisemitism, while the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is concerned about universities squelching anti-war sentiments on campuses.

kAmkDEC@?8mp #xvw% %wp% $w~&{s qt $putv&p#stsk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmv~! =2H>2<6CD 2?5 8@G6C?@CD H9@ 92G6 AC6G:@FD=J 4@>A=2:?65 23@FE 4@?D6CG2E:G6 G@:46D 36:?8 46?D@C65 @? =:36C2= 42>AFD6D 92G6 AFD965 282:?DE 2?E:xDC26= AC@E6DED]k^Am

kAmx? u=@C:52[ v~! v@G] #@? s6$2?E:D 32??65 $EF56?ED 7@C yFDE:46 😕 !2=6DE:?6 W$y!X 2E AF3=:4 42>AFD6D 27E6C A@DE~4E] f AC@E6DED] w6 92D 2=D@ 6=:>:?2E65 DE2E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D 5:G6CD:EJ[ 6BF:EJ 2?5 :?4=FD:@? WstxX @77:46D 2?5 @G6C92F=65 E96 AC@8C6DD:G6 }6H r@==686 @7 u=@C:52]k^Am

kAm%96 p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? 2?5 @E96C 8C@FAD 2C6 492==6?8:?8 E96 5624E:G2E:@? @7 E96 AC@!2=6DE:?:2? 8C@FA @? 7C66 DA6649 8C@F?5D[ E9@F89 2 7656C2= ;F586 56?:65 E96:C C6BF6DE 7@C 2? :?;F?4E:@? 😕 E96 42D6 y2?] b`]k^Am

kAm}6H r@==686[ $y! 2?5 E96 pr{& 5:5 ?@E C6DA@?5 E@ C6BF6DED 7@C 4@>>6?E]k^Am

kAmp 425C6 @7 v~! =2H>2<6CD :?4=F5:?8 s6$2?E:D 2?5 |@?E2?2 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= pFDE:? z?F5D6? 2=D@ H2?E 7@C6:8? 4@==686 DEF56?ED E@ A@E6?E:2==J =@D6 E96:C G:D2D 2?5 86E 56A@CE65 :7 E96J DFAA@CE w2>2D @C @E96C &]$]56D:8?2E65 E6CC@C 8C@FADk^Am

kAmt>:=66 r2?EC6==[ 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 5:C64E@C 7@C E96 |@?E2?2 2EE@C?6J 86?6C2=[ D2:5 DA6649 C:89ED D9@F=5 36 D2768F2C565[ 3FE 2=D@ AC@>:D65 E@ 6?7@C46 92E64C:>6 =2HD[ 2D ?66565]k^Am

kAmtG6CJ p>6C:42? 92D E96 C:89E E@ 7C66 DA6649 C682C5=6DD @7 E96:C 36=:67D[ 2 C:89E E92E D9@F=5 36 D2768F2C565] w@H6G6C[ 2DD2F=E 2?5 G:@=6?46 😕 |@?E2?2 H:== ?@E 36 E@=6C2E65] %96 |@?E2?2 s6A2CE>6?E @7 yFDE:46 H:== 5@ :ED A2CE E@ 6?DFC6 E92E DE2E6 =2HD[ :?4=F5:?8 92E64C:>6 =2HD[ 2C6 36:?8 7@==@H65[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

An anti-war protester interrupts President Joe Biden during a campaign event touting abortion rights on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024. College campuses have become epicenters for protests against U.S. (and Bidens) support for Israels war versus Hamas in Gaza.

Read more here:

America Divided Part II: Mideast war magnifies free speech challenges on college campuses - The Daily Reflector