While dissent is nipped in the bud instantly, hate speech flows with impunity. Just a year after the Easter bombings, the highly organised anti-Muslim discourse-generating machine is once again propagating a familiar tale in which Muslim communities are constructed as the enemy Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Ramya Kumar

In responding to epidemics, states are compelled to resort to restrictive measures to contain the spread of infection, including quarantine and isolation procedures, travel bans, lockdowns, and curfews. With such restrictions on movement, draconian measures are often swiftly implemented as a subdued citizenry remains compliant, in support of national efforts to combat an unknown enemy. In Sri Lanka, we are seeing strict censorship alongside the fast and furious implementation of policies and measures that would otherwise have faced widespread protest and dissension.

Restrictions on free speech are detrimental to public health efforts. Dr. Li Wenliang, the whistleblower who succumbed to coronavirus in February, is now deemed a martyr in China for having alerted colleagues about the novel coronavirus through social media. Instead of responding appropriately to contain the spread of the virus, Chinese authorities interrogated the doctor on the grounds of spreading fake news and silenced him, in effect, delaying its response to the epidemic. Similarly, a number of healthcare workers in the United States have been fired after speaking out about their risky work conditions.

In Sri Lanka, there seems to be substantial self-censorship within the Ministry of Healths COVID-19 control program. Apart from the numbers reported by the Epidemiology Unit, we do not know on what basis decisions are being made to quarantine communities, or to extend (and lift) curfews. We do not know who is involved in making these decisions. There are concerns that the military is overriding the Ministry of Healths authority in such matters. This lack of information is enabling the spread of wild rumours, including allegations of falsified COVID-19 statistics. In this context, it may be useful to consider the World Health Organizations recommendation for a national COVID-19 risk communication strategy:

Proactively communicate and promote a two-way dialogue with communities, the public and other stakeholders in order to understand risk perceptions, behaviours and existing barriers, specific needs, knowledge gaps and provide the identified communities/groups with accurate information tailored to their circumstances. People have the right to be informed about and understand the health risks that they and their loved ones face. They also have the right to actively participate in the response process. Dialogue must be established with affected populations from the beginning. Make sure that this happens through diverse channels, at all levels and throughout the response.

Has there been two-way dialogue? Have communities been involved in this process? Unfortunately, no. Furthermore, there has been very little critical analysis of the COVID-19 response in Sri Lanka. We only hear of the glowing and well-deserved tributes to frontline healthcare workers and others involved in control efforts. There has been little engagement with communities affected by the crisis. In fact, we do not even have the space to question our pandemic control strategynow a matter of national pride.

Last week in Jaffna, we heard that 12 new cases of COVID-19 had been detected at quarantine centres. As Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan, Consultant Community Physician, reasonably opined, these cases may have been new cases that emerged after an extended incubation period or the result of cross-infection at quarantine centres.

When Dr. Vallipuranathan posted his comments on social media, the authorities could either have responded with facts to counter his theory, or, alternatively, taken speedy action to investigate and remedy the situation. Instead, Dr. Vallipuranathan was vilified for questioning the COVID-19 control program. In a letter dated 17 April, the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA), which is supposed to be a trade union fighting for the rights of doctors, complained to the Director General of Health Services that Dr. Vallipuranathan who has a controversial and racist previous history expressed views detrimental to the Health Department and Sri Lanka Army.

To make matters worse, earlier in April, the IGP instructed the Police to take strict action against those who criticise Government officials engaged in COVID-19 control. A number of arrests were subsequently reported in the media over the spread of so-called fake news. While the details of these seemingly arbitrary arrests are not known, we should be very concerned when even a mere questioning of the countrys COVID-19 control strategy is viewed to be unpatriotic. While dissent is nipped in the bud instantly, hate speech flows with impunity. Just a year after the Easter bombings, the highly organised anti-Muslim discourse-generating machine is once again propagating a familiar tale in which Muslim communities are constructed as the enemy. We are being told that Muslims are conspiring to transmit infection; they deserve en masse quarantine in (unsafe?) centres; and that it is acceptable to enforce cremation in lieu of burial. Even the medical profession is complicit here as evidenced in an earlier version of the GMOAs proposals for a COVID-19 exit strategy, which shockingly included the size of the Muslim population in a DS division as a variable for risk stratification.

Earlier in April, the Ministry of Health helpfully issued guidelines for media reporting, stipulating that personal details of patients with COVID-19, including their ethnicity, should not be reported. They called for reporting that builds solidarity in this time of crisis. In this context, the adoption of compulsory cremation as Government policycontrary to WHO guidelinesseems to demonstrate a double standard, particularly when we see mass burials taking place in other countries ravaged by the pandemic.

Moreover, the Ministry of Health has failed to issue statements to counter insinuations made by the media, as well as some political leaders, that have served to stigmatise Muslim communities as disease-laden, insular groups who are unwilling to follow public health measures. It is hardly surprising then that sections of these communities may be wary of interacting with the public healthcare system.

Even as dissent is repressed, and hate speech is nurtured, the Government is acting fast, facing little or no resistance. We saw the appointment of numerous military officials to key positions in the pandemic control program that should rightfully be occupied by civil administrative officials. Such militarisation has resulted in an autocratic style of governance with very little information sharing. For instance, we have not been informed on what basis the decision was made to partially lift the curfew on 20 April. Neither do we know who was involved in the decision-making process. It is hardly surprising then that many have arrived at the conclusion that Parliamentary Elections are being prioritised over public health.

This style of governance is also seeping into our institutions. As university teachers, we have received orders from the University Grants Commission (UGC) to commence online teaching as soon as possible. With no discussion of the merits of online teaching or the urgency for its implementation, we are adopting new pedagogical methods via Zoom and/or Moodle. Meanwhile, studentsincluding those from farming families experiencing dire financial difficulties in the Vanni and other areas (where network coverage may be weak)are expected to engage in learning activities through their smart phoneseveryone has a smartphone. The lack of foresight in decision-making is mindboggling, as is our silence.

With the curfew being partially lifted, this is a call to critically engage with the measures that are being swiftly implemented at this time of crisis. Lets demand that the citizenry be involved in processes of decision-making at all levels. Lets insist that public sector officials with the relevant expertise and experience are placed at the helm of this national pandemic control effort. And, finally, lets condemn the ongoing anti-Muslim attacks and resist ethno-chauvinist mobilisations in the run up to the elections.

(The writer is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of Jaffna, and is a member of the Public Health Writers Collective)

Read the original:

Free speech, hate speech, and COVID-19: Why are we silent? - ft.lk

Shams Ghoneim Published 8:35 a.m. CT April 23, 2020

Shams Ghoneim(Photo: Special to the Press-Citizen)

The reported Islamophobic, homophobic, uglyand appalling online comments by Muscatine County jail administrator Dean Naylor must be condemned and promptly addressed by both Johnson and Muscatine counties' leaderships, including city councils and mayors.

The Johnson County sheriff has had a 10- to 12-year contract with Muscatine County, allowing him to send overflow inmates to relieve overcrowding in our jails. These inmates are as yet to be charged and/or are awaiting trial.

Maybe it is time that this agreement is evaluated or ended in view of this latest serious incident.Free speech is protected under the Constitution, but federal lawand the U.S. and Iowa constitutions protect against discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, age, race, national originand disability.

According to news reports, inmates in Muscatine jails have been complaining of discriminatory treatment. The ACLU of Iowaclarified the position regarding free speech as long as that speechdoes not lead to discriminatory action by a government employee/entity. Nevertheless, when an employee hateful speech results in creating a hostile work environment causing disruption or discrimination at the workplace, that protection becomes null. Such speech can also be used as evidence against the individuals if and when it is related to civil rights claim or other legal action taken. This would be the case when personal beliefs spill into the management of the jail and negatively affects both staff and inmates.

The Johnson County Board of Supervisors and leadership are commended for their prompt response to this reprehensible behavior by a government employee of a partner Iowa county. This incident should be a warning to anyone that may be engaged in civil rights violations that can readily lead to a class action suit be brought against any government official involving discrimination of protected communities as identified by law.

Even though currently there are no policies in either county to respond to such allegations,I urge both Johnson and Muscatine county officials to formally establish future guidelines to address such hateful and potentially illegal speech.

We cannot allow government employees paid by our own tax dollars to freely engage in hateful speech leading to discriminatory behavior against protected minorities.

Shams Ghoneimwas born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, immigratedformallyto the U.S. from Canada in 1967 and has lived in Iowa City for 52 years. She graduated from the University of Iowas graduate college, was on the universitys professional scientific staff for 32 years and has served on the Press-Citizens Editorial Board since retiring in 2008.

Read or Share this story: https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2020/04/23/shams-ghoneim-there-no-place-hate-speech-iowa/5152221002/

View post:

There is no place for hate speech in Iowa - Iowa City Press-Citizen

Lisa Wehden is an investor at Bloomberg Beta, a VC fund focused on the future of work; previously she launched Entrepreneur First in Berlin.

Next month, Apple and Google will unveil features to enable contact tracing on iOS and Android to identify people who have had contact with someone who tests positive for the novel coronavirus.

Security experts have been quick to point out the possible dangers, including privacy risks like revealing identities of COVID-19-positive users, helping advertisers track them or falling prey to false positives from trolls.

These are fresh concerns in familiar debates about techs ethics. How should technologists think about the trade-off between the immediate need for public health surveillance and individual privacy? And misformation and free speech? Facebook and other platforms are playing a much more active role than ever in assessing the quality of information: promoting official information sources prominently and removing some posts from users defying social distancing.

As the pandemic spreads and, along with it, the race to develop new technologies accelerates, its more critical than ever that technology finds a way to fully examine these questions. Technologists today are ill-equipped for this challenge: striking healthy balances between competing concerns like privacy and safety while explaining their approach to the public.

Over the past few years, academics have worked to give students ways to address the ethical dilemmas technology raises. Last year, Stanford announced a new (and now popular) undergraduate course on Ethics, Public Policy, and Technological Change, taught by faculty from philosophy, as well as political and computer science. Harvard, MIT, UT Austin and others teach similar courses.

If the only students are future technologists, though, solutions will lag. If we want a more ethically knowledgeable tech industry today, we need ethical study for tech practitioners, not just university students.

To broaden this teaching to tech practitioners, our venture fund, Bloomberg Beta, agreed to host the same Stanford faculty for an experiment. Based on their undergraduate course, could we design an educational experience for senior people who work across the tech sector? We adapted the content (incorporating real-world dilemmas), structure and location of the class, creating a six-week evening course in San Francisco. A week after announcing the course, we received twice as many applications as we could accommodate.

We selected a diverse group of students in every way we could manage, who all hold responsibility in tech. They told us that when they faced an ethical dilemma at work, they lacked a community to which to turn some confided in friends or family, others revealed they looked up answers on the internet. Many felt afraid to speak freely within their companies. Despite several company-led ethics initiatives, including worthwhile ones to appoint chief ethics officers and Microsoft and IBMs principles for ethical AI, the students in our class told us they had no space for open and honest conversations about techs behavior.

Like undergraduates, our students wanted to learn from both academics and industry leaders. Each week featured experts like Marietje Schaake, former Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands, who debated real issues, from data privacy to political advertising. The professors facilitated discussions, encouraging our students to discuss multiple, often opposing views, with our expert guests.

Over half of the class came from a STEM background and had missed much explicit education in ethical frameworks. Our class discussed principles from other fields, like medical ethics, including the physicians guiding maxim (first, do no harm) in the context of designing new algorithms. Texts from the world of science fiction, like The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin, also offered ways to grapple with issues, leading students to evaluate how to collect and use data responsibly.

The answers to the values-based questions we explored (such as the trade-offs between misinformation and free speech) didnt converge on clear right or wrong answers. Instead, participants told us that the discussions were crucial for developing skills to more effectively check their own biases and make informed decisions. One student said:

After walking through a series of questions, thought experiments or discussion topics with the professors, and thinking deeply about each of the subtending issues, I often ended up with the opposite positions to what I initially believed.

When shelter-in-place meant the class could no longer meet, participants reached out within a week to request virtual sessions craving a forum to discuss real-time events with their peers in a structured environment. After our first virtual session examining how government, tech and individuals have responded to COVID-19, one participant remarked: There feels like so much more good conversation to come on the questions, what can we do, what should we do, what must we do?

Tech professionals seem to want ways to engage with ethical learning the task now is to provide more opportunities. We plan on hosting another course this year and are looking at ways to provide an online version, publishing the materials.

COVID-19 wont be the last crisis where we rely on technology for solutions, and need them immediately. If we want more informed discussions about techs behavior, and we want the people who make choices to enter these crises prepared to think ethically, we need to start training people who work in tech to think ethically.

To allow students to explore opposing, uncomfortable viewpoints and share their personal experiences, class discussions were confidential. Ive received explicit permission to share any insights from students here.

The rest is here:

Silicon Valley needs a new approach to studying ethics now more than ever - TechCrunch

Pacific Beach Town Council, Councilmember Campbell release statements on the planned protest

San Diego Community News Group

Councilmember Jennifer Campbell:

For the last few days, my office has received an outpouring of calls from residents concerned about this weekends protest in Pacific Beach. While no one is arguing against anyones freedom of speech, holding a rally during a pandemic goes against our public health orders and common sense. There are many other forms of civic engagement available that dont put San Diegans in danger. I am deeply disappointed that a tiny number of individuals from inside and outside San Diego are putting themselves and others at risk with these actions. Thats why the Pacific Beach Town Council and I stand firmly against this planned protest.

Im so proud of the work that everyone in our beach and bay communities have done to slow down the spread of COVID-19. I am distraught that these efforts could be undone by an unsafe gathering of people who are not following social distancing procedures, vastly increasing the chances of this extremely infectious disease to spread.

No one has enjoyed the last few weeks. Families have had to say goodbye to loved ones too soon. Life milestones like weddings and graduations have been canceled. Frontline workers from nurses and doctors to grocery store workers and first responders have worked tirelessly to keep our city running. These protests are a slap in the face to all the sacrifices San Diegans have made.

To those planning on driving in, stay home. Be with your families. Leave Pacific Beach out of your dangerous and potentially deadly protest.

Councilmember Jennifer Campbell represents San Diegos Second Council District including the communities of Bay Ho/Bay Park/Morena, Midway/North Bay, Mission Bay, Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach, and Point Loma.

Pacific Beach Town Council:

The Pacific Beach Town Council stands firmly against the exploitation of our neighborhood for this planned gathering by out-of-towners. This protest is not only inconsiderate to our community at large, but we find it especially discourteous to our vulnerable populations and to the sacrifice made by our local nurses, grocery store employees, and other essential workers. These brave workers have carried the burden of exposure while PB residents have been respecting the temporary 'stay at home' order and social distancing measures in order to bend the curve of this pandemic.

Most of these protesters will be driving in from other parts of the county. We strongly oppose this. Phase 1 reopenings of beaches and bays are already scheduled to begin the morning after this attention-seeking protest. Our Northern Division police officers are overburdened enough without having to chaperone this planned protest of hundreds.

I've shared comments on their Facebook event page. We understand their right to free speech and freedom of assembly, but we're asking them to revise their strategy given the phase 1 reopening now scheduled for Monday.

Sincerely,

Brian White

President, Board of Directors

Pacific Beach Town Council

pbtowncouncil.org/leadership/

See the original post here:

Pacific Beach Town Council Councilmember Campbell release statements on the planned protest - Councilmember Jennifer Campbell: For the last few days...

The Governor of Virginia has signed into law two progressive Bills on abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The states new Reproductive Health Protection Act rolls back safeguards for unborn children. Mothers will no longer have to be offered an ultrasound and an opportunity to hear their childs heartbeat at least 24 hours before going ahead with an abortion.

The state branded the protections medically unnecessary restrictions on womens healthcare.

During a debate on the legislation, Delegate Kathy Byron said the Act denies mothers complete information on what an abortion means, its consequences, its implications, its alternatives leading them to be less informed on one of the most important decisions that they ever make.

Roman Catholic Bishops Michael Burbidge and Barry Knestout said: Over the past eight years, abortions have decreased by 42% in Virginia. Tragically but undoubtedly, these changes to our state law will reverse that life-saving progress and increase the number of abortions.

The following day, the Governor also signed into law the Virginia Values Act, which claims to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Critics have warned the Bill threatens free speech.

Gregory Baylor, Senior Legal Counsel for religious liberty group Alliance Defending Freedom, previously said that the Act is a dangerous path which coerces uniformity of thought and speech on beliefs about marriage, sex, and gender.

He explained that laws elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes have a proven record of undermining both fairness and freedom for all citizens.

He highlighted similar US laws which have empowered the government to force people who willingly serve everyone to promote messages and participate in events that violate their faith or convictions.

Last month, female MPs in the UK spoke out against the silencing of women by transgender activists.

The SNPs justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry MP, said that Professor Selina Todd accused of being transphobic for challenging the narrative that transgenderism has been prevalent throughout history had been censored simply for asserting womens rights.

She added: If we allow bullies to triumph over free speech in one area of public discourse, we are giving them free reign to triumph over free speech in other areas of public discourse.

Jackie Doyle-Price MP commented that it is not at all transphobic to argue in favour of female-only spaces such as changing rooms.

Irish Govt follows GB to bring in DIY abortion

Poetry Library makes courageous stand for free speech

Academic branded transphobic for stating biological fact

Read more from the original source:

Virginia removes abortion safeguards and threatens free speech - The Christian Institute

Friday, April 24, 2020 | 2:30 pm 3:45 pm

An online forum hosted by PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program

This is PEN Americas third online forum in our webinar series, Free Speech & the Virtual Campus. More webinars will be announced.

As COVID-19 has shifted campuses online and media outlets have scrambled to cover the crisis, student press groups around the country have stepped up in enormous ways to serve their communities. Amid challenges with finances, staffing, printing, records access, and university staff communications, student journalist leaders continue to move their teams forward in support of an informed public.

Join PEN America and the Student Press Law Center in a roundtable with student press leaders from eight universities as we discuss ways to navigate this crisis and safeguard free expression and a free press in these turbulent and uncertain times.

REGISTER HERE

Mike Hiestand has been integral to the Student Press Law Centers (SPLC) success since 1989. He was an SPLC intern, its first legal fellow, and then served as full-time staff attorney from 19912003. Over the years, he has assisted about 16,000 student journalists and advisers. He currently works from the west coast on the SPLC hotline and related projects. In 201314, Hiestand traveled around the country with Mary Beth Tinker, teaching and speaking out on behalf of student press rights and free expression. Tinker Tour USA kicked off on Constitution Day at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The bus logged 15,595 miles across the American east coast, midwest and southeast speaking to more than 20,000 students and teachers at 58 stops, including schools, colleges, churches, a youth detention facility, courts, and several national conventions. In the spring of 2014, The Tinker Tour moved on to schools and events in the American west, midwest and southwest, as well as a stop in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Vancouver, Canada. Hiestand, who grew up in Alaska, graduated from Bartlett High School in Anchorage and went on to Marquette Universitys College of Journalism and Cornell Law School.

Read more:

[WEBINAR] Free Press on Campus and COVID-19: A Leadership Roundtable with Student Journalists - PEN America

Illustration by Andrea Nebhut

Maury Maverick was the mayor of San Antonio from 19391941. Before that, he was a congressman for two terms. He practiced law in San Antonio, he formed and served as vice president of a lumber company, and he restored La Villita in downtown San Antonio.

But thats not why Jennifer Henderson, chair of the Department of Communication, finds him interesting.

I got interested in that topic when I was doing other research about the Jehovahs Witnesses and their free speech claims, which is research Ive been doing for a really long time, since graduate school, Henderson said. And I kept running across this incident that happened in San Antonio, where they were denied access to use the Municipal Auditorium.

While Henderson looked into this incident with the San Antonio Jehovahs Witness community and the auditorium, she found one mans name kept popping up: Maury Maverick.

HOW IT BEGAN

Henderson is a First Amendment Scholar, and as she described, much of her research has focused on Jehovahs Witnesses and their free speech claims.

However, she found that the incident concerning the Municipal Auditorium was about more than the Jehovahs Witness community in San Antonio.

The Communist Party requested to hold a rally at the Municipal Auditorium. And I think it was surprising to a lot of people that Maury Maverick said yes, that they could do this. And it didnt turn out so well. And so there were mobs of people who attacked the auditorium, Henderson said. So then, the Jehovahs Witnesses asked to use the Municipal Auditorium after that, and he was just like, no, were not going to go through this again.

Henderson saw four primary groups in San Antonio that Maverick interacted with: the Communist Party, the Jehovahs Witnesses (and other religious groups), women specifically Latina women and black people.

In the past three years, she has enlisted three students through the Mellon Initiative to write chapters about each group. Their research would be compiled into a book Maverick Rights: Mayor Maury Maverick and Free Speech in Wartime San Antonio which is now nearing its publication date.

THE RESEARCH

According to Henderson, Mavericks mayoral term was marked by his progressives values; though, today, his policies and interactions with his constituents may not be considered so progressive.

Maverick ultimately was not reelected because he was labeled a communist after he allowed that communist group access to the Municipal Auditorium.

But Hendersons book is not a biography of Maverick. Rather, it focuses on his interactions with minority communities in San Antonio: people with different political alignments, religious groups, non-white constituents and women.

Hendersons chapter focuses on Jehovahs Witnesses and other religious communities in San Antonio; Hunter Sosby, class of 2019, researched Mavericks interactions with the Communist Party; senior Simone Washingtons chapter is about the Black community in San Antonio; and senior Connie Laings chapter covers Mavericks reactions to his Latina constituents.

Each student who has worked with Henderson did so through the Mellon Initiative in consecutive summers: Sosby in 2017, Washington in 2018 and Laing in 2019.

For the most part, their research was archive-based. For Washington, that meant traveling between the archives in Coates Library on campus and the library at St. Phillips College.

Initially I started off doing a lot of in-house research at Trinity, but then I branched off, at Dr. Hendersons suggestion, to St. Phillips library on their campus on the East Side of San Antonio. She said something very important: If I was writing about Blackness, then I should definitely be reading it from Black authors, Washington said.

Over this past summer, Laing and Henderson made a trip to Austin to see the full collection of Mavericks archives that is housed at the University of Texas.

It was great because he had saved everything from that time period. And so whether or not it was like a banner or a poster from his election, or whether it was a speech where he had, like, crossed out all the things he was going to say like seeing those original documents, Henderson said.

MAVERICK, HIMSELF

In her research about Mavericks connection to San Antonios Chili Queens, Laing found the former mayor to be a divisive character.

He spoke out about poll tax politically. He did not think it was good I mean, the poll tax was created to basically disenfranchise poor people, mainly, though it targeted poor minority racial groups, such as black people, Hispanic people, Laing said. The question becomes, did he do it for selfish reasons, which was to get the poor white voting base, or was it that he believed the poll tax was this disenfranchisement tool? And that becomes a really complex question.

Washington agreed that Mavericks character isnt as easy as saying, yes, hes racist, or no, hes not.

There was no conclusive answer. Like most things, it was kind of complex. A lot of people see him as a racist because of the language he used to describe Black people, but in other ways, he kind of opened the spaces to enter in the political arena, Washington said.

Washington described Maverick as benevolently racist, taking a more paternal role as a politician, though he did speak out against some things that were widely supported at the time, like lynching.

When Maverick was a U.S. representative, the illegality of lynching hadnt been made official at the federal level, and Maverick was one of few to advocate for anti-lynching legislation.

He, in really strong words, was putting down this hateful practice, which was rare of a white Southern congressman at the time, Washington said.

Though Maverick was progressive, not all of his actions as a politician would ring as progressive by todays standards, including what Laing described as egregious speech towards Latina women.

He was a new leader, a progressive, definitely one of the most progressive Southerners at the time. This is the late 1930s, Henderson said. And so, in many ways, hes a, you know, a strange bird when it comes to like Southern politics at the time, but hes very much of his time.

And thats whats important for this research group. Maverick extended his political platform to disenfranchised communities:

Theres really this political machine in San Antonio that he challenges, Henderson said. And there are alliances in ways that we really dont think about today in terms of democratic politics. Its all of that together. Hes not always making choices that are in a progressive sense the way we would consider them today. But at the time, he was definitely seen as a progressive.

PLANS FOR PUBLICATION

The book, which Henderson hopes to have ready to publish in the fall, is nearly done, though she said she may add a chapter depending on extra research done this summer.

This summer, Im doing a separate project with a first-year student on Emma Tenayuca who was a communist leader and labor rights activist in San Antonio. And that may end up being an additional chapter related to this, Henderson said. What that is really based on is what kind of language shes using in protests and how people are pushing back against both the language and assembly rights.

Henderson has worked with students before, but this is her first book in which shes collaborated with students.

Ive done a lot of collaborative projects with academics over my years. And the students who are working on these projects are academics, right? And they are professionals that are excellent writers and great researchers, Henderson said. And one of the most important things is that we recognize it doesnt really matter that theyre new scholars, but that they are scholars as well.

For Washington, the research has helped her better contextualize the city shes lived in for the past four years.

I think investigating what the early 20th century looked like for San Antonio gave me kind of the backdrop by which I can understand San Antonio currently, Washington said. And thats that it is highly, highly segregated, and not by coincidence or by chance by systemic forces playing out decade after decade.

Henderson agreed.

What weve realized, as weve done more and more with this research, is how many of the issues and concerns of the time still remain in relationship to speech and press, Henderson said.

With additional reporting by Marielle Sambilay

Post Views: 627

The rest is here:

Maury, the Maverick: Why one San Antonio mayor captured Trinity researchers' attention - The Trinitonian

President Donald Trump is a menace to the First Amendment.

His hostility to the White House press corps and the non-right-wing news media is well documented.

But while being rude to reporters and reflexively shouting "fake news" are effective tactics to make his base even less inclined to believe anything negative about Trump, they're trivial concerns compared to the speech-chilling lawsuits filed by his reelection campaign against media outlets both big and small.

These petty lawsuits accusing various outlets of libel have little chance of success, but they will drain resources from media organizations who have published or aired opinions and ads that are critical of the president.

And they will serve as warnings to every organization that a deep-pocketed presidential campaign is willing and able to bring the pain.

Trump's reelection campaign has filed suit against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times for publishing opinion pieces that they claim are libelous.

It "flies in the face of basic First Amendment doctrine," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a California lawyer who has worked on a number of high-profile free-speech cases, told The New York Times.

He added: "The complaint is attacking opinions where the authors are expressing their views based on widely reported facts."

Put simply, opinions are protected by the First Amendment. Even opinions that aren't 100% based in fact are protected by the First Amendment.

Libel, which requires "actual malice" that a deliberately false statement was published to hurt a person's reputation, is not protected by the First Amendment. And that's a good thing for Trump, because he's been well known to say patently false things about people with the intent of disparaging their reputations.

Trump's latest salvo in his war on free expression is a suit filed by his campaign against the small television station WFJW, a northern Wisconsin NBC affiliate. The station had been airing an ad produced by Priorities USA, one of the largest and well-funded pro-Democratic Party super PACs.

In the ad, titled "Exponential Threat," a series of Trump clips are played over ominous music. Early in the ad, two clips from two different Trump recordings are played back to back: "The coronavirus this is their new hoax."

In reality, Trump never directly called the coronavirus a "hoax." He did regularly downplay the danger it posed, likening it to the flu, and even opined that it would just miraculously disappear. Trump's "hoax" comment was a reference to the Democrats' failed attempt to remove him from office through impeachment.

To Trump, that was a "hoax," just as Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the then burgeoning crisis was a "hoax." Is that dirty pool, or is that just politics?

"If this is the bar for what is a defamatory campaign ad then the vast majority of campaign ads are defamatory," Ken White, a California civil-liberties lawyer who blogs and tweets under the "Popehat" moniker, told Insider. White added: "Even arguably taking [words] out of context is absolutely routine. It is not a false statement of provable fact."

White says the Trump campaign's allegation of libel is a "nonsense argument" that is "performative" and "doesn't have much of a chance of succeeding in the long term."

But, he adds: "Even when a lawsuit is completely frivolous, it's ruinously expensive to defend. For most individuals and small businesses, it's completely impossible to afford. And even for a relatively moderate-sized business like a TV station, it can destroy it."

White thinks it's not a coincidence that the campaign chose to sue an individual TV station rather than the well-funded super PAC that produced it. He also thinks the fact that they chose Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won in 2016, was strategic: Wisconsin has no anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP Is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. They are the lawsuit equivalent of censorship by intimidation. Anti-SLAPP laws which vary from state to state allow defendants to request a motion to dismiss a frivolous suit before it bleeds them financially dry.

To recap: The Trump campaign is ignoring the big-money super PAC and is instead going after a small TV station in a state where there are no protections against bogus lawsuits like this.

These cash-draining suits come at a time when an already struggling industry is bleeding even more jobs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And while major corporate media outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have the resources to fight such suits, a small Midwestern TV affiliate surely does not.

Should this suit move forward in Wisconsin's legal system, it will send a chill up the spines of any modestly funded media outlet that wants to publish anything even a campaign ad that makes Trump look bad.

This goes beyond "fake news" insults; it is an intimidation tactic by the president designed to bring the media to heel by causing financial ruin in response to coverage he doesn't like.

There was an attempt at anti-SLAPP legislation at the federal level, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015. While it had bipartisan support of 30 members of Congress, it wasn't enough for the bill to make it out of committee. But this is a worthy law for Congress to take up, because it defends the First Amendment from deep-pocketed bad-faith litigants.

No one, not even Trump, should be able to sue free speech into submission.

Here is the original post:

The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider

Democracy Now! looks at the spike in coronavirus infections at meatpacking plants. In just one case, Smithfield Foods shut down a plant responsible for 5% of U.S. pork production after more than 350 workers at the facility tested positive for COVID-19.

Meanwhile, deaths of slaughterhouse workers have been reported in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Colorado. Many poultry/meat processing facilities employ large numbers of immigrants, including undocumented workers.

DN also speaks with Wenonah Hauter, executive director and founder of Food & Water Watch, and with Magaly Licolli, executive director of Venceremos, an advocacy group for poultry plant workers, based in Springdale, Arkansas, home to Tyson Foods headquarters.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez.

Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

Amy Goodman Coronavirus COVID-19 Democracy Now! Free Speech TV Meat Poultry Slaughterhouse Wenonah Hauter Workers' Rights

See the original post:

Hundreds of Workers in Meat & Poultry Plants Test Positive for COVID-19 - Free Speech TV

Kyle Kaminski

FRIDAY, April 17 The Lansing Police Department plans to ramp up enforcement efforts should protests continue to involve social distancing violations and gridlock in the capital city.

Some officials in Lansing were roundly disappointed by a lack of meaningful enforcement of social distancing mandates on Wednesday during Operation Gridlock. Hundreds of demonstrators left their cars, refused to socially distance and clearly violated state orders.

And none of the blatant violations this week resulted in any actual legal consequences in Lansing. The Michigan State Police took a largely hands-off approach; LPD didnt issue a single citation.

In response, Lansing Mayor Andy Schor announced today that additional precautions will be taken for future demonstrations after many of those who participated in the rally put the safety of residents, first responders and their respective communities at risk, Schor said.

The hands-off approach didnt seem to curb dangerous behavior, explained City Council President Peter Spadafore. While I hope there arent future events like this, we really do need to have a more thorough plan in place to enforce the law and protect our citizens out there.

Were Lansing. Were used to protests. We know how to handle traffic problems. We know how to handle large crowds. It seems that all of that historical knowledge just went out the window this week, Spadafore added. There just wasnt a coordinated plan to ensure safety.

The Michigan State Police handled the State Capitol lawn, the epicenter of Wednesdays protest. The Lansing Police Department, with some assistance from MSP, was responsible for monitoring the rest of the city, controlling traffic and ensuring the crowds played by the rules.

However, officers at either agency didnt issue citations to anyone, even if they were in clear violation of the social distancing guidelines. Instead, the order of the day was about warnings.

MSP officials told MLive that the extreme discretion approach was based on a handful of factors, including protecting the right to gather and protest while balancing the potential arrest of dozens of protestors with an angry, cooped-up crowd that could've quickly become violent.

Police Chief Daryl Green insists that his officers did not follow the same protocol, noting that tickets could have been issued for distancing violations. His officers simply decided against it. But next time around, hell consider issuing a directive to ramp up enforcement against violators.

Green focused first on actual physical public safety essentially ensuring crowds kept calm. And while hundreds were still warned about standing too close together, none were ticketed. The takeaway: Police could have been done more to protect residents. And next time, they will.

This was unprecedented, Green told City Pulse. Moving forward, well monitor these situations and take appropriate action as necessary. I cant guarantee well have 100 citations next time, but if we have an opportunity to take enforcement action, well do it.

Under new guidance from the mayors office, the Police Department has been directed to seek out additional assistance from other law enforcement agencies in the region for future protests. Officers will also watch for social distancing violations with a closer eye, Schor explained today.

Knowing that this is going to happen again, that there are plans for more protests, we always review what we can do and what works and what doesnt work, Schor added. We can always make adjustments, especially for these new styles of precautions that must be taken.

Schor said Lansing was only prepared for a normal protest not a gathering of thousands with gridlocked streets during an unprecedented lockdown order and a worldwide health crisis. In the future, traffic could also be restricted from some residential neighborhoods, Schor said.

At a press conference this afternoon, Schor said the city will also consider closing lanes near major hospitals to ensure access and working with the Michigan Department of Transportation to restrict highway access into Lansing.

It was a different rally and a different protest than weve ever seen before, Schor added. Protesters had said they were going to be circling the Capitol. We really didnt know the effects that would have on the rest of the city. Were going to be ready for this new reality.

Green knows that actual tickets and fines can serve as an important deterrent for those who choose to ignore the governors order on social distancing. A police presence with real enforcement also adds some teeth to the mandate, showing violations carry consequences.

But he also knows he needs to strike a delicate balance between protecting the public and his own staff. Every officer that comes into contact with someone to write a misdemeanor ticket risks further exposure to the virus, and the potential for at least 14 days off duty in quarantine.

I understand that people want more tickets and they want more arrests, but every time we pull those officers, those resources, away for something like writing a ticket, our state of readiness goes down. Were less prepared for something else that could take place, Green said.

Hospital staff at both McLaren and Sparrow in Lansing also took to social media this week to complain about the gridlocked streets. Some emergency personnel were late to their shifts. A few ambulances were briefly delayed in traffic, but no other significant delays were reported.

Local streets were noisy and filled with racist imagery Wednesday. Noise ordinances might have been violated. Hundreds more had clearly crossed the governors social distancing mandates, endangering countless thousands across the state as they converged on Lansing.

Ingham County Health Officer Linda Vail said officials are learning as they go, but she was pleased to see plans in the works for heavier handed enforcement for future demonstrations.

Have we ever dealt with something like this before? Probably not, Vail said. This was new. We know how to handle protests. We know how to handle epidemics. We supposedly know how to handle pandemics. All of these conflating at one time? Its just unprecedented.

I get allowing free speech. But people from all over the state traveled into Ingham County and interacted with all sorts of people here, Vail added. We have to have some sort of balance to the right of free speech and the right to protect our community under this executive order.

Excerpt from:

Lansing cops brace for another 'Operation Gridlock' - City Pulse

Inside the Hot Zone, by Mark G. Kortepeter 83, M.P.H. 95 (Potomac Books/University of Nebraska, $34.95). Now a public-health professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the author is a retired army colonel with long experience in defense against biological agents. His thriller-like account, subtitled a soldier on the front lines of biological warfare, is a timely reminder that alongside natural threats (Ebola, coronavirus), life sciences can be weaponized in stealthy, alarming ways.

Traces of J.B. Jackson, by Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz, Ph.D. 69, RF 01 (University of Virginia, $39.50). John Brinckerhoff Jackson 32 had an engaging, diverse, creative three-year undergraduate career at Harvard, following which his life experiences in Europe, New Mexico, and the military led him to create Landscape magazine and to shape, profoundly, landscape studies at Berkeley, the Graduate School of Design, and elsewhere. Horowitz, now emerita from Smith College, provides an accessible, handsomely illustrated guide to the life and work of the man who taught us to see everyday America.

Baby Jails: The Fight to End the Incarceration of Refugee Children in America, by Philip G. Schrag 64 (University of California, $29.95 paper). A Georgetown Law professor details the too-long history of locking up minors (he worked in a jail full of toddlers) brought into this country, often for basic reasons of safety, and political leaders refusal to address their needs for minimally humane care. An issue that lingers because the people who would have to caredont.

Nothing Is Wrong and Here Is Why, by Alexandra Petri 10 (W.W. Norton, $25.95). A collection from the work of The Washington Post columnist, whose zany satiresfar more carefully and wickedly crafted than they at first seemgo far beyond her role as dedicated humorist in the nations capital. It seems almost unfair for her to get to practice in an era so rich in possibilities. A Good Time to Talk About Gun Laws (President Donald Trump said he would do so as time goes by) notes that Not now is not the same as never. It must be on a day when there has been not recent gun violence. So not today, and not tomorrow, and not the day after that. But someday. That was in 2017.

The Last Negroes at Harvard: The Class of 1963 and the 18 Young Men Who Changed Harvard Forever, by Kent Garrett 83 and Jeanne Ellsworth (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $27). A retired television journalist (see Reel Revolution, March-April 2017, page 55) tells the stories of 18 youngsters who grew up when Brown vs. Board of Education was decided; entered Harvard as the largest group of Negroes admitted to a freshman class to date; and graduated as the civil-rights confrontation campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, began to break segregation: the era when Negro gave way to black (hence the title). He recalls the special sting of dorm crew: I was a Negro doing Negro workI was in my place. In recording what it meant to be pulledinto an unknown world, Garrett and Ellsworth have captured the nascent movement toward a broadened institutiona change well worth remembering.

Why We Swim, by Bonnie Tsui 99 (Algonquin Books, $26.95). The writer/swimmer/surfer reports on the enigma of land-adapted Homo sapiens loving to live by and plunge into the water. Journalism cum poetry: We submerge ourselves in the natural world because the natural world has a way of eliciting awe.

The Long Fix, by Vivian S. Lee 87, M.D. 92 (W.W. Norton, $26.95). The president of health platforms at Verily Life Sciences, an Alphabet/Google analytics enterprisea Rhodes Scholar, and former dean of the University of Utah School of Medicineseeks solutions to Americas health care crisis with strategies that work for everyone. In a system marked by waste, overtreatment, deadly mistakes, inconsistent care, excessive bureaucracy, and other serious ailments, she attacks the bias of paying for action (the pervasive fee-for-service paradigm) rather than demanding results.

Healthy Buildings, by Joseph G. Allen, assistant professor of exposure and assessment science, and John D. Macomber, senior lecturer in finance (Harvard, $35). A public-health scientist and a Business School teacher join forces to explain why the indoorswhere humans in developed societies spend 90 percent of their timedrive performance and productivity, as the subtitle puts it. A useful complement to the energy- and climate-focused concerns of the green-building movement.

A Registry of My Passage Upon the Earth, by Daniel Mason 98 (Little, Brown, $27). The physician-novelist (The Winter Soldier, The Piano Tuner) presents a series of precisely crafted, often historically informed, stories about mystery and the unexpected turns of diverse lives.

The Caregivers Encyclopedia, by Muriel R. Gillick, professor of population medicine (Johns Hopkins, $22.95 paper). Given the burgeoning obligation to assist increasingly dependent elders, many of their grown children, and others, will gratefully receive this compassionate guide to caring for older adults. It is admirably forthright, clearly organized, and helpfully illustrated, proceeding from an initial focus on understanding someones underlying health state through visiting doctors, entering the hospital, and proceeding from acute to long-term care, at home and in specialized facilities.

The Fairest of Them All, by Maria Tatar, Loeb research professor of Germanic languages and literatures and of folklore and mythology (Harvard, $27.95). The preeminent scholar of folklore (profiled in The Horror and the Beauty,November-December 2007, page 36) here examines the cruel, jolting tale of Snow White in the global context of 21 tales of mothers and daughters. A creepy, revealing collection.

Cook, Taste, Learn, by Guy Crosby, adjunct associate professor of nutrition (Columbia University Press, $26.95). A brisk, attractively formatted history of the science of cookingwith color-coded inserts on the learning (emulsions, the chemical structure of fats, etc.) and for recipes.

Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, by Suzanne Nossel 91, J.D. 96 (Dey Street, $28.99). The CEO of PEN Americaformerly COO of Human Rights Watchadvances a common set of rules for speech in an era when our global conversation is now a mosh pit of expression and [h]ateful speech is on the rise.

The Obama Portraits, by Tana Caragol, Dorothy Moss, Richard. J. Powell, and Kim Sajet (Princeton, $24.95). Three National Portrait Gallery colleagues and a Duke art historian (Powell) document the making of and extraordinary public response to the official portraits of President Barack Obama, J.D. 91, and First Lady Michelle Obama, J.D. 88.

The first post-nomination portrait of Abraham Lincoln, by William Marsh, May 20, 1860, taken in Springfield, IllinoisPhotograph by William Marsh/ The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Public Domain

Lincoln on the Verge, by Ted Widmer 84, Ph.D. 93 (Simon & Schuster, $35). A gripping, minutely detailed account of Abraham Lincolns 13-day progress from Springfield to Washington, to take possession of the presidency at the then-United States moment of greatest challenge. Evocatively illustrated, and resonant with the kind of leaderly rhetoric and character that sustained the nationand made it great.

When Truth Mattered, by Robert Giles, curator emeritus, Nieman Foundation for Journalism (Mission Point Press, $16.95 paper). The then-managing editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, Giles now has written a fiftieth-anniversary account of the Kent State shootingswhen protest was cut down by state power gone horribly wrongand of the role of a free press in getting the news right. In an uncomfortable number of ways, his story resonates with current circumstances.

Originally posted here:

Recent books with Harvard connections - Harvard Magazine

On Thursday, five ad industrytrade associations released a joint statement urging Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to retract a portion of a new executive order that prohibits large retailers from advertising nonessential items and property owners from advertising short-term rentals.

The Association of Advertising Agencies (4As), the American Advertising Federation (AAF), Association of National Advertisers (ANA), Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) say the ad ban violates free speech, does nothing to help public health and could further hurt the economy.

In arbitrarily prohibitingadvertising by large retailers and rental property owners, theorder violates a fundamental tenant of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech by targeting specific speakers based on what they want to say, reads the letter.

The Michigan executive order was issued on April 9, 2020, and is slated to last for the rest of the month. The order is meant to slow the spread of COVID-19 by requiring residents to stay at home and keep nonessential businesses closed.

The trade associations are specifically addressing sections 11 and 12 of the order which prohibittwo groupslarge retailers and property ownersfrom advertising.

The order instructs that stores of more than 50,000 square feet, refrain from the advertising or promotion of goods that are not groceries, medical supplies, or items that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and basic operation of residences by April 13, 2020.

The mandate also states: No one shall advertise or rent a short-term vacation property except as necessary to assist in housing a health care professional or volunteer aiding in the response to the COVID-19 crisis.

We dont see a rational basis [for the order], or any basis at all, says Dan Jaffe, group exec VPof government relations at ANA. We agree with the Governor that people need to be protected, but we dont want restrictions on advertising. It might just increase issues were facing economically.

Jaffe says that as far as the industry is aware, the ad ban applies to all formats and distribution channels in the state, but says the order is not specific enough when it comes to these details.

Under the constitution, a state has the power to prohibit advertising, but the Supreme Court has made it so that a state has to prove it has a substantial interest in doing so, says Jaffe. Health is a substantial interest, but we believe this is unconstitutional, he says. The proposal has no effect on public health and violates the first amendment.

A major piece of contention in the order is the difference in freedoms given to small stores and large retailers. Why can a store that is relatively small advertise and not a large store? he says, adding that often social distancing is harder to accomplish in small stores where there are fewer aisles.

Read the original here:

Ad industry bodies urge Michigan governor to recant ban on advertising nonessential items - AdAge.com

Tthe North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law has offered its assistance to Gov. Cooper and local governments in rescinding or revising orders unconstitutionally restricting the rights of the people to free speech and to assembly.

We understand the seriousness of the situation, not just in terms of COVID-19 itself but also in terms of how government is violating the constitution during the crisis.

The First Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution protect the peoples right to free speech and to assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights may be limited if government has a compelling interest and uses narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. NCICL recently posted an explanation of the test, called strict scrutiny, used by courts to decide whether this tough burden has been satisfied when a government limits fundamental rights like the right to free speech. That explanation and other resources are available at http://www.ncicl.org.

First Amendment rights arent absolute, but neither is government power. If Gov. Cooper or local governments want help, NCICL is more than willing to help them revise or rescind their orders to ensure that constitutional rights are respected.

Jeanette Doran

President/general counsel

NC Institute for Constitutional Law

See the original post:

An open letter to Gov. Roy Cooper and local governments across the state - Laurinburg Exchange

The drive-by rallly at the state capitol in Lansing was highly publicized mainly on social media. Gov. Whitmer mentioned earlier in the week that she was all for people excersizing their right to free speech, but has been very vocal about the importance of social distancing.

FOX 17 talked with Gov. Whitmer about the turnout at the rally and why she says it may impact the stay-at-home order in the future.

"Well, i think that yesterday's event was a political rally," said Whitmer. "I know that there were some people there that came to protest the stay at home order, but the vast majority of people there were there, making political statements. Whether it was open carry people that had AR-15s that they were carrying on their bodies or it was people that were flying the confederate flag, people that were using swastikas."

Governor Whitmer also raised concern after some protesters did not stay in their cars.

"I know that this is, this was an event where people will now go back to different parts of the state, and could could actually pass COVID-19 on in a greater number," Whitmer said. " The irony the sad irony is that they were protesting the state home order. and because of their actions might make it necessary to take this posture even longer if COVID-19 continues to spread, because of this irresponsible action."

Read more:

Gov. Whitmer responds to drive-by rally at the state capitol - Fox17

Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of the evangelical Liberty University, has long positioned himself as a torch-bearer of free expression. "Free speech and intellectual diversity are two of the most important pillars of a college education," he wrote last June. "That's why I urge every college and university in the country to encourage open political discourse on their own campusesjust as we do at Liberty University."

Falwell is now demanding the arrest of two reporters he accuses of painting his school in a negative light.

In an interview with radio host Todd Starnes, Falwell derided reporters at The New York Times andProPublicafor how they covered his decision to partially reopen Liberty amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Both pieces, he claimed, unfairly portrayed Liberty's attitude toward the coronavirus as flippant and careless. He singled out, for example, Times journalist Elizabeth Williamson's characterization of a conversation she had with local physician Thomas W. Eppes, Jr.: Williamson wrote that Eppes told her "nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19." Although one eventually tested positive, Falwell said the presumptive cases never numbered as high as 12a depiction he cast as "sensational click-bait."

And so the university president secured arrest warrants for Times photographer Julia Rendlemanand ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis for trespassing, a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. He told Starnes that an additional warrant is coming against someone affiliated with another "big time liberal news organization." (There is no warrant against Williamson because she did not take any photographs, so there's no physical proof that she was on campus.) Falwell also maintained that "lawsuits will be filed" against The New York Times if a retraction or Liberty-friendly correction isn't issued regarding the contagion numbers.

It's possible that Falwell is just trying to engage in some crisis PR. It's also possible that Williamson misunderstood or mischaracterized Eppes' comments. The veracity of the story isn't the point here. The point is Falwell's attempt to arrest people associated with reports he feels are biased against himnot the recourse you'd expect from someone who seriously sees his university as a bulwark of free expression.

"It is clear that Falwell is engaged in a campaign of petty retribution against journalists who write articles critical of the university," says Ari Cohn, a free speech lawyer and former director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). "But that's actually completely in line with Liberty University's faux concern for freedom of expression. Falwell's idea of freedom of expression on campus includes only expression that he approves of."

The trespassing charges aren't likely to hold up in court: The reporters involved were photographing a student who invited them to campus for an interview. But who really believes that the alleged trespassing is Falwell's concern here? He wants to intimidate people who criticize his school.

That same browbeating culture is alive and well within the institution's walls. Calum Best, the student interviewed by both The New York Times andProPublica, described an angry phone call he received from Scott Lamb, the college's senior vice president for university communications, after he wrote a Facebook post arguing for tuition refunds amid COVID-19. Lamb included Best's work-study boss on the call.

"I thought I was in deep trouble for some professional failure," Best wrote on Medium. "But, as the call went on, I realized my boss had no need to be there, and had no connection to the matter at hand."

That heavy-handedness tracks with how Falwell and his associates oversee Champion, Liberty University's student paper. Will E. Young, the former editor-in-chief, wrote last year that Falwell actively got in the way of Trump-critical coverage, at one point removing a student op-ed lamenting Trump's Access Hollywood tape. The author of that erstwhile column, Joel Schmieg, took to Facebook to air the grievance and was promptly contacted by a faculty adviser, who reprimanded him for doing so. Schmieg then resigned.

As a private institution, Liberty University can set its own rules of conduct. But it's the height of hypocrisy to muzzle student speech while making a show of opposing censorship. And the university president isn't just dealing with a newspaper on its own turf: With these warrants, Falwell is leveraging state power to try to stop speech by private actors whose only connection to his school is to write about it. It's a bad approach for anyone to take, but especially someone who claims to support free expression and intellectual diversity.

The rest is here:

Jerry Falwell Jr. Has a Free Speech Problem - Reason

In times of crisis, liberal democratic institutions and values are vulnerable to authoritarian power grabs, or corona coups, as we are seeing around the world today. One of the first victims, as always, is freedom of speech. But the current attack on free speech is particularly dangerous, because it does not only target, reasonably, fake news on coronavirus, but also critique of inadequacies in hospitals by healthcare workers.

Repressive measures against fake news have been a popular topic for years now, having reached feverish levels in the wake of the 2016 US presidential elections. Even though the actual effects of fake news and Russian interference remain unclear and highly disputed, many mainstream politicians have convinced themselves that the spread of fake news is one of the main reasons that they are losing votes and power to populists.

Social media platforms are pressured into fighting fake news and a true cottage industry of factcheckers has emerged many reputable, some not. Still, too little progress has been made. This is not that surprising, though, given the daily barrage of fake news coming out of some of the most powerful political offices in the world, including Downing Street and the White House.

Since the term was popularized by Donald Trump, it should come as no surprise that populists in power have enthusiastically embraced the fight against fake news. And now the coronavirus has given them an opportunity to intensify that fight by passing draconian new laws, allegedly to prevent fake news from worsening the crisis.

One of the worst examples, as so often in recent years, comes out of Hungary, where the rubber stamp parliament has passed a set of emergency measures without actually facing an emergency (as of 31 March, Hungary has officially had only 492 cases, including 16 deaths) to give the far-right prime minister Viktor Orbn dictatorial powers. As Orbn rules by decree, anything that he deems fake news will be punishable to up to five years in prison a death sentence for independent media, in so far as it still exists in Hungary.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the attack on the free speech of people at the frontlines of the fight against the coronavirus: healthcare workers. These are the people best informed about the situation, and thus the best potential antidotes to fake news. Yet, according to the Independent, British NHS doctors are being gagged over protective equipment shortages, while NHS England has taken control of communications for many NHS hospitals and staff.

In the US, one of the few western democracies without a universal public healthcare system, individual private hospitals are doing the censoring. Prioritizing their brand and profits over the health of their patients and staff, private hospitals across the US have threatened staff with termination if they speak out about the lack of protective gear. Several hospital staff have already been fired after speaking out, an incredible waste of crucial but sparse resources during a pandemic.

Leaving aside the problem of employers regulating the speech of their employees, incidentally an increasingly common development (even at universities), censoring healthcare professionals is outright dangerous to the broader community. These are the people who actually have day-to-day experience with the coronavirus and risk their lives to help others particularly if their employers dont provide them with adequate protective gear.

Free speech makes us more rather than less safe, both as citizens and patients

Moreover, we know how dangerous this type of censorship is from recent experiences in China. Max Fisher has written an excellent New York Times expos of how Chinas authoritarian structure had worsened the countrys response to the coronavirus outbreak. And western media have devoted ample attention to the tragic case of Li Wenliang, the Chinese whistleblower doctor who died of the coronavirus in February.

The irony is that some of the same politicians who support, or at least allow, the censorship of healthcare professionals in their own country have been outspoken critics of the Chinese approach. For instance, the British cabinet minister Michael Gove recently blamed China for failing to stop the spread of coronavirus, while Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House foreign affairs committee, even called Chinas response one of the worst cover-ups in human history.

To ensure that we are not making the same mistakes as China, and to protect the health and lives of the heroic healthcare workers (including the many volunteers) who are putting their lives on the line every day to keep us alive and healthy, we must resist these dangerous attacks on free speech, as well as other unnecessary authoritarian measures in response to the coronavirus crisis. Irrespective of the hype about fake news, free speech makes us more rather than less safe, both as citizens and patients, even in times of a health crisis.

Excerpt from:

Don't let free speech be a casualty of coronavirus. We need it more than ever - The Guardian

Most citizens in the United States take the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech as a source of patriotic pride. We have been taught that all speech is protected. Bad speech is overcome with good speech. No matter how much harm speech inflicts, when the First Amendment is in question, the Supreme Court feels it is its duty to defend all speech.

Thane Rosenbaum, a lawyer, novelist and Distinguished University Professor at Touro College, disagrees. In his informative and highly readable book, Saving Free Speech from Itself (Fig Tree Books), he explains how many of our assumptions about freedom of speech and the law are either incorrect as a matter of history or rest on a thin scaffolding of flawed reasoning. At the same time he shows there are many instances where America is shutting down free speech. In Rosenfelds view the time has come to save free speech from itself. His book deserves serious consideration in our current political and educational climate.

I must admit to being surprised to learn how little I understood the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers implicitly assumed free speech to mean that the government could not suppress any expression against the government, nor could private individuals be coerced into propagating government propaganda. In other words, free speech was initially a buffer against dictatorship and limited to freedom from government control. In 1919, this changed with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.s stirring dissent in Abrams v. United States, which won over the American public by arguing that restraints on private speech were permissible only when speech constituted a present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about essentially, the dont shout fire in a crowded theater test.

Rosenbaum attempts to reframe our assumptions about freedom of speech.

As Rosenbaum shows, free speech protection for private individuals is now used to violate peoples privacy and dignity. He describes how in 2011, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, overturned a jury verdict against the Westboro Baptist Church. The church set up a protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, chanting slurs against gays and holding up signs reading God hates America and Thank God for dead soldiers.

Get Jewish Week's Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Heartbroken by the fiasco of a funeral, the soldiers father sued. The 8-1 majority set aside all consideration for the family, piously invoked the right to free speech and further ordered that Snyder pay the churchs $16,000 in costs.

In other instances, Rosenbaum shows how the First Amendment is used to protect hate speech. Holocaust deniers and KKK members as well as possibly more benign flat earth and fake moon landing believers have all advanced their agendas under the umbrella of free speech. And most alarmingly he gives examples of how it is used to protect potentially fatal substances. Purveyors of, say, fake coronavirus cures and treatments can be sued on product claims, but anybody can get up on a street corner and make any claim that they want.

The coronavirus outbreak has also reminded us of the necessity of free speech as the Founding Fathers defined it. Dr. Li Wenliang, the Wuhan ophthalmologist who early on tried to warn the Chinese medical community about the virus potency, was forced by Communist Party authorities to recant his false comments. How many lives might have been saved if his speech had been free.

Dr. Lis warning is exactly the kind of free speech the First Amendment was trying to protect. Rosenbaum shows, however, that todays free speech is too often serving a different function. He writes: Here is what the First Amendment should never be called upon to protect: groups of nativists shouting Muslims Go Home; neo-Nazis marching through a hamlet [of] Holocaust survivors ; burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans; showing up to a military funeral to make ones hatred of homosexuals plainly known. They are, in fact, neither ideas nor debates. They are orgies of hate that amount to non-speech. Lets stop pretending we cannot tell the difference.

While this is not an explicitly Jewish book, Rosenbaums exploration of the harm caused by current applications of free speech will resonate with Jewish readers. His arguments about human dignity and free speech echo within the biblical notion of the image of God. Likewise he shows how Talmudic dictates that compare slander to physical harm and even death are backed up by modern scientific research that demonstrates that false speech can cause physical harm.

In an era in which American society has become radically polarized, Rosenbaum sets out to bridge the liberal-conservative divide, at least when it comes to permitted speech. He asks us to address some of our core ideas about American ideals. Not a bad thing to do when the government is ordering us to stay sheltered in place for the good of all Americans.

Scott A. Shay is chairman and co-founder of Signature Bank of New York and is the author of In Good Faith: Questioning Religion and Atheism (Post Hill Press, 2018).

Read the original post:

A Contrarian's View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech - Jewish Week

An online forum hosted by PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program

NEW YORKThis week, PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program launched a webinar series, Free Speech and the Virtual Campus, with an inaugural session devoted to What Professors Need to Know about Online Hate and Harassment. Hundreds of participants viewed the session from seven countries, as panelists discussed online attacks and abuse that faculty can prepare for, defend against, and combat.

Viktorya Vilk, program director for digital safety and free expression at PEN America, discussed how online abuse can be defined and outlined the chilling, censoring effects it can have on writers and journalists. She summarized recent trends and offered advice, drawn from PEN Americas Online Harassment Field Manual, on how to protect ones identity, how to document online abuse, and how to be a supportive ally to those targeted. She explained that women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community are disproportionately targeted by abuse and hate, which risks silencing the voices of those who have historically been marginalized in higher education and society writ large. She emphasized that offering institutional support and allyship to students, faculty, and staff targeted by online abuse is critical to ensuring that higher education is more equitable and diverse.

Oren Segal, vice president at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League, discussed the rise in white supremacists and extremists using online spaces to spread hate, and their efforts to use the pandemic to reach new audiences. Segal noted that just like everyone else, extremists are also home now, engaging in online aggression, like Zoombombing. Despite some extremists affiliating themselves to hate groups, Segal emphasized that the majority of offenders are lone actors, making some of their actions hard to predict. Segal shared ADLs tips on preventing Zoombombing as well as their hate symbols database, as a reference for faculty to familiarize themselves with.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Professor of Education and Sociology at American University, spoke about the current threat of youth radicalization, with K-12 and college students now spending greater amounts of time online. She detailed how faculty members could prepare for such threats proactively, by updating their awareness of hate symbols and familiarizing themselves with digital platforms, as well as getting to know their security settings and available restrictions. She also offered advice for faculty and administrators in the aftermath of an incident of hate or harassment, elaborating on how faculty might deal with the after-effects of a Zoombombing incident in an online class.

Various questions and concerns were also taken up by panelists, as posed from the audience, including:

Link:

[RECAP] What Professors Need to Know about Online Hate and Harassment - PEN America

Mi-Ai Parrish (top left), Kyle Pope (top right), and Suzanne Nossel (bottom middle)

Screenshot from Zoom

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the local news industry was a patient who already had all the underlying health conditions, said Mi-Ai Parrish, the former publisher of the Arizona Republic.

Now, local news is a patient in critical condition. Each day brings a new round of layoffs and pay cuts for journalists, a new slowing down of a printing press, and a new silence in communities that need accurate, updated, and tailored information. This is the tragic irony of our current moment: The COVID-19 pandemic is underscoring the critical importance of local news while also decimating it.

Considering this contradiction and examining paths forward were at the heart of Future Tenses most recent web event in our yearlong Free Speech Project series, which is examining the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

In communities across the U.S., local journalists have kept their communities informed throughout the pandemic about things like how many tests are available, where to go to get the resources they need, whats happening with their schools, what shortages their hospitals facethe sort of crucial, community-level coverage that large national publications like the New York Times cant.

Local news coverage during the pandemic hasnt just been about tallying cases. Kyle Pope, the editor and publisher of Columbia Journalism Review, noted that outlets have also shone a spotlight on social problemsthings like existing issues in county jails, the lack of capacity for digital learning in schools, and resource gaps at hospitals.

We think of local journalists as first responders, said Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of PEN America, a membership organization of writers dedicated to protecting free expression. Indeed, news organizations have been widely designated as essential businesses during the pandemic.

Recognizing the importance of their work to their communities, many news organizations have taken down paywalls for their COVID-19 coverage, an honorable decision which highlights an interesting conundrum, said Parrish, currently the Sue Clark-Johnson Professor in Media Innovation and Leadership at Arizona State University. (Disclosure: ASU is a partner with Slate and New America in Future Tense.) Outside of emergency situations, people often argue against paywalls by claiming that journalism is so vital that it should be freebut whats lost in that argument is that precisely because journalism is so vital, it needs the financial backing of its audience.

Unfortunately, convincing people to pay for journalism, particularly online journalism, is difficult.

Theres still sort of a hangover from the days where everything on the internet was free and people expected it to be free, Nossel said.

In a November report, PEN America found that over the past 15 years, newspapers have lost over $35 billion in ad revenue and 47 percent of newsroom staff. In many cases, the report notes, the digital shift has collapsed local newsrooms business models.

Without even taking into consideration the impact of our current pandemic, $35 billion represents a massive funding gap, one not easily bridged. Doing so requires recognition among the public that journalism is a necessary public serviceand perhaps government funding.

The most recent stimulus bill, as Nossel and Viktorya Vilk recently highlighted in Future Tense, includes almost no support for the journalism industry. But several organizations, including PEN America, are calling for future stimulus funding to include a special focus on local news organizations.

Government funding for journalism is controversial in the U.S., with critics citing concerns over editorial independence. But there are successful models for maintaining independence despite government funding in areas such as scientific research and the arts, Nossel said.

Perhaps this stimulus phase can kind of destigmatize the idea of expanding public funding and catalyze a robust, in-depth debate, she said.

One thing thats clear is that solutions are urgent. More than 2,100 newspapers have disappeared since 2004, according to University of North Carolina professor Penny Muse Abernathy. And that was before the pandemic. Once they disappear, they do not come back, said Nossel. So theres a finality at stake here.

Ultimately, said Pope, the problem local news faces is so daunting that theres no rescue big enough thats going to come from the outside. Rescuing local news requires community buy-in and community boots on the ground.

To get their communities to rally around them, said Pope, its incumbent on these news organizations to humanize themselves.

There are lots of ways to do this. It may involve sitting with your critical readers to discuss concerns over barbecue. It may involve, as Pope once did, parking an RV on the streets of Manhattan and opening the doors to community members with concerns, comments, questions, and tips. It wont always be easy.

But luckily, local news organizations have two big things going for them on this front. First, the majority of Americans trust local television, newspapers, and radio (more so than national news sources), and this trust increases with increased contact with local reporters.

The second, Parrish highlighted, is that among local journalists there is still so much heart for the work, despite constant challenges. After the 2016 election of Donald Trump, journalism schools across the country saw a surge in class sizes, and the panelists said it was reasonable to expect a similar reaction in the months following the pandemic.

Pope said his largest source of hope is local journalists commitment to telling stories that matterthe type of commitment that has them emailing CJR the day after theyve been laid off with an idea for a new, important story that theyre ready to report.

This hope is especially important in the face of the industrys uncertain future.

Its like everything that were living through right now. None of us know where the other side is, Pope said. I live in New York City and every day I look for glimmers of hope in the data, and some days I see it and some days I dont [W]e have to get through that phase first, and then we can start looking at the battlefield and sort of say, Where do we go now?

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Go here to read the rest:

The New York Times Is Great, but Wholl Cover Your Community? - Slate

Senator Bernie Sanders has suspended his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, making former Vice President Joe Biden the presumptive nominee to face Donald Trump in November. Sanders says he will stay on the ballot in remaining primary races and continue to assemble delegates.

DN plays highlights from Sanderss speech to supporters in a live stream on Wednesday. Together, we have transformed American consciousness as to what kind of nation we can become, and have taken this country a major step forward in the never-ending struggle for economic justice, social justice, racial justice and environmental justice, he said.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez.

Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

2020 Democratic Presidential nomination Amy Goodman Bernie Sanders Democracy Now! Donald Trump Free Speech TV Joe Biden

See the article here:

Suspending the Campaign, Not the Movement: Bernie Sanders Pulls Out of 2020 Race But Will Stay on Ballot - Free Speech TV