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

What are the free speech rights of university students? That was the first question posed by moderator Jeffrey Rosen, GW Law professor and president of the National Constitution Center, to a panel of George Washington University faculty experts on the First Amendment.

The webinar, Free Speech v. Hate Speech: First Amendment Scholars Discuss Where to Draw the Line in the Context of Higher Education, was held as part of the universitys plan for strengthening the GW community in challenging times, with the goal of fostering civil conversations about complex issues and emphasizing university policies.

The incoming inaugural Burchfield Professor of First Amendment and Free Speech Law, Mary-Rose Papandrea, began by noting that the First Amendment applies to public and not private universities, but private universities often look to the First Amendment principles for guidance. Under the First Amendment, she explained, some categories of speech receive no First Amendment protection, such as incitement of unlawful conduct, threats of violence, or giving material support to terrorists. But offensive speech and bad words are not carved out from the First Amendment. In a public university setting, however, there is some leeway for penalizing speech that would be otherwise protected. She suggested classrooms provide the best example of this.

When I ask a student to tell me the holding of a case, I actually want the holding of the case, and there is a wrong answer, Papandrea said. And if the student doesnt give me the correct answer, that will result in a lower grade in the class. Outside in the town square you can engage in false speech, incorrect speech, or misrepresentations and cannot be, as a general matter, punished by the government.

Most of the tensions surrounding free speech on campuses today, she added, arise when universities attempt to regulate the speech of faculty and students outside of the classroom.

Universities are the quintessential marketplace of ideas, Papandrea said, and we should be really concerned when the university starts making viewpoint-based speech restrictions outside of the classroom.

First Amendment: Does everything go?

In the view of Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology and Civil Rights Law, free speech issues are clouded by unequal power relations, often resulting in protection of reckless speech for the majority but not for minorities. Franks proposes an alternative paradigm encouraging what she describes as fearless speech.

If we really want to talk about free speech, we actually need to get away from the First AmendmentI mean the kind of popularized version of the First Amendment which says everything goes, and you can never have any kind of intervention, Franks said.

People operating under this misconception, she added, argue that any kind of devaluation or nonplatforming constitutes censorship. That idea, she said, is pernicious.

When we think about what the First Amendment actually does, its not really telling us anything about free speech, Franks said. Its telling us about what the government cant do in certain contexts. And thats really useful to know, because the government has a lot of power that no individual has and because the kinds of measures it can take against you include the loss of your liberty. But I dont know that its such a good model for us as a private university. How much are we like a government? What we could be doing instead, and what I think successful universities do when they want to be marketplaces of ideas or spaces for intellectual, robust debate, is set standards. What are the good ideas? Whether an idea is controversial or noncontroversial is not the point.

Instead, Franks said, ideas should be well informed and argued eloquently. She argues in favor of a conscious curation of the best ideas that reflect the universitys values, expressed as persuasively as possible without threats of force or ad hominem attacks.

What is the kind of speech that a university could uniquely try to foster? she asked. What kind of space could it foster to become a forum where really difficult ideas get aired out in a way that is physically safe but also sophisticated? Im suggesting that we move toward fearless speech and critiques of current power structures, that we take notice of the fact that reality is a certain way. There are certain sensitivities to race and gender and class that we really need to have on our radar, if we want to make sure that people within the university space can speak equally.

Free speech at a private university

Dawn Nunziato, Pedas Family Professor of IP and Technology Law, agreed that the First Amendment is not necessarily the right one for every context.

At a private university like GW, we have the autonomy and the freedom and the duty to decide what kind of community we want to be, Nunziato said, and within certain bounds, what types of speech we want to protect and to not protect. Our speech policies are not governed by the First Amendment. So we dont need to protect hate speech in the same way that the First Amendment protects hate speech. We could draw the line very differently. And there are reasons why we should, and we should be very thoughtful about how we draw the line. We may choose to value inclusivity and belonging over the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nunziato noted, GW has a responsibility to provide an educational environment free of discrimination.

Robust discussion and respectful listening

The panels discussion touched on the recent congressional hearings at which the presidents of three elite universities were criticized for saying that whether speech could be considered hate speech depends on context.

After pointing out that she didnt view it as incorrect to say that the answer to questions of free speech v. hate speech can depend on context, Papandrea noted examples of speech that should be protected, such as an antisemitic line spoken by a character in a play meant to condemn antisemitism. The same line spoken by a student marching across campus could be viewed as creating a hostile environment.

Franks, too, was sympathetic to the trio of university presidents, who may have been reacting to the charge that universities are a woke paradise for snowflakes who require trigger warnings.

The most upsetting thing about the spectacle is not any of those presidents answers, Franks said. It was the fact that the spectacle was happening at alla real invocation and revitalization of a McCarthyesque kind of moment, with legislators who have made it clear that antisemitism and white supremacy are things that they either dont have a problem with or actively support. It was a really grotesque spectacle, she added, a bad faith attempt to attack diversity.

If we object to the First Amendments protection of vile speech in the public square, Nunziato said, we take that up with the Supreme Court, which defines the First Amendments protections. But whether vile speech should be restricted in the university environment is a different question, she added.

Balancing robust, sometimes caustic and heated discussion on issues of public importance against the legal obligations that we have to protect our community members from discriminatory harassment, Nunziato said, is an important part of what we do as a university.

Being part of a university community, Nunziato said, presents a unique opportunity to interact more thoughtfully than people do on social media.

Our University Yard and the quad are spaces where there may be protesters and counter-protesters, but we can be there together, Nunziato said, and engage in speech and counterspeech, unlike in some of the online environments where we have egregious problems of information silos and people going down rabbit holes. In the university environment, were all on our phones and on social media, but were also in spaces where we can engage with one another. Maybe were raising our voices, but we can listen to one another. One of the principles in our code of conduct is that members of the university community are urged to hear all sides of controversial issues.

In closing remarks, Rosen quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who argued that the correct remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

The concluding webinar, Rosen said, was a model of the kind of robust discussion and respectful listening that Brandeis advocated.

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University - GW Today

You devote the first part of the book to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his journey into skepticism about universal morality. To whom is that relevant today?

Many of todays students have a keen thirst for social justice, which I admire. When Holmes was their age, he shared that thirst, dropping out of college to enlist in the Union Army in a war against slavery, in which he was nearly killed several times.

He became very skeptical of people who believe they have unique access to universal, absolute truth, who view their adversaries as evil incarnate. That, he believed, leads ultimately to violence.

All of us today need to approach public debate with a bit of humility, recognizing that none of us is infallible and that rigid moral certitude leads down a dangerous path.

We know from centuries of experience, in many countries, that censorship inevitably backfires. It discredits the censors, who are seen as patronizing elites. It demeans listeners who are told they cant handle the truth. It makes martyrs and heroes out of the censored and drives their speech underground where its harder to rebut.

Suffragettes, civil rights leaders, and LGBTQ+ activists all have relied on free speech to get their messages out. Censorship alienates the public, generates distrust, fosters social division, and sparks political instability.

Its not that some speech isnt harmfulits that trying to suppress it causes greater harm.

Not all hateful speech is protected. Incitement to violence, fighting words, defamation, and true threats are all often hateful yet that speech is not protected. But other hateful speech is protected, for several reasons.

Hatred is a viewpoint. Its for the individual to think and feel as he or she wishes; its only when the individual crosses the line between thought and action to incite violence or defame or threaten someone that the state can intervene.

Hate speech laws are also invariably vague and overbroad, leading to arbitrary and abusive enforcement. In the real world, speech rarely gets punished because it hurts dominant majorities. It gets punished because it hurts disadvantaged minorities.

The ultimate problem with banning falsehoods is that to do so youd need an official Ministry of Truth, which could come up with an endless list of officially banned falsehoods. Not only would that list inevitably be self-serving, but it could be wrong.

Even when it comes to clear falsehoods, there are reasons to leave them up. [Former President Donald] Trump claimed, for example, that the size of the crowd at his inauguration was larger than [former President Barack] Obamas, which was indisputably false. But the statement had the effect of calling into question not only Trumps veracity but also his mental soundness, which is important for voters to assess.

They were wrong to apply a norm of international human rights law in banning hima supposed prohibition against glorifying violence. Thats a vague, overly broad standard that can pick up everything from praising Medal of Honor winners to producing Top Gun.

Were dealing here with an American president speaking from the White House to the American people, so I say the proper standard should have been the U.S. First Amendment and whether Trump intended to incite imminent violence and whether that violence was likely. Under that test, I think its a close case.

Justice Louis Brandeis [who served on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939] said that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

If someone counsels drinking bleach to cure COVID, the remedy is not to suppress itits to point out why thats wrong. But over and over, the governments remedy for speech it didnt like was to strongarm social media platforms to take it down.

The government wouldnt have lost so much credibility if it had only said, This is our best guess based on available evidence. Instead, it spoke ex cathedra on masks, lockdowns, school closings, vaccine efficacy, infection rates, myocarditis, social distancing, you name itclaims that often turned out to be untenableand then it bullied the platforms to censor prominent experts who took issue with its misinformation.

The remedy for falsehoods is more speech, not enforced silence. If someone thinks a social media post contains altered imagery or audio, the initial solution is simply to say that and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.

Obviously counter-speech isnt always the answer: You still run into eleventh-hour deep fakes that theres no time to rebut. People do have privacy rights and interference with elections undercuts democracy.

The trick is to write legislation that catches malign fakery but doesnt also pick up satire and humor that is obviously bogus. Thats not easy. Well-intended but sloppy laws often trigger serious unintended consequences.

See the original post here:

An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy - Tufts Now

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical of arguments Monday by the states of Florida and Texas that they are justified in regulating social media content moderation in a landmark case with major implications for speech on the internet.

The court heard oral arguments for two major speech-related cases on Monday: NetChoice v. Moody and NetChoice v. Paxton. The technology industry group NetChoice sued the states of Texas and Florida over laws imposed by Republicans meant to hold social media platforms accountable for banning users based on viewpoint.

Floridas law would allow residents to take legal action and the state to fine companies if they remove political candidates from social media platforms. The Texas law would require platforms to be content-neutral and allow the states attorney general and residents to sue platforms for removing content or blocking accounts. The court pressed the states to provide a justification for restricting speech. The justices, though, also asked questions aimed at determining the extent of Big Techs power over speech on the internet.

NetChoice v. Moody

Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker was the first to appear before the court to argue in NetChoice v. Moody. He said that platforms had to be neutral when it comes to content moderation and that the law merely regulates the conduct of a platform rather than the content. He also alleged that platforms such as Facebook and Google need to be treated as common carriers. Being defined as a common carrier, a term initially used for public transportation services and utilities but expanded to include radio stations and telephone services, would subject platforms to additional restrictions, including anti-discrimination regulations.

Multiple members of the court appear skeptical of Floridas law, noting that it was very broad and affected more platforms than some claimed it would. [Floridas law is] covering almost everything, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The one thing I know about the internet is that its variety is infinite.

Justice Samuel Alito noted there is also no list of platforms covered by Floridas statutes. This broadness makes it challenging to deal with the cases particulars, Justice Clarence Thomas argued. Were not talking about anything specific, Thomas said. Now were just speculating as to what the law means. The e-commerce platform Etsy was brought up multiple times by the court as an example of a platform that would be inadvertently affected by Floridas law.

Paul Clement, NetChoices representative, responded in his arguments by saying that Floridas law violated the First Amendment multiple times over. He also tried to create a distinction between content moderation decisions made by government entities versus private entities. There are things that if the government does, its a First Amendment problem, and if a private speaker does it, we recognize that as protected activity, Clement argued.

The Biden administrations Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar seemed to affirm Clements arguments, arguing in favor of NetChoice and limiting Floridas power over speech.

Netchoice v. Paxton

The court reconvened a short time after to hear arguments about Texass law. Clement returned to represent NetChoice, arguing that Texass law requiring neutrality on the platform would make social media less attractive to users and advertisers since it would require platforms to host both anti-suicide and pro-suicide content as well as pro-Semitic and antisemitic content.

He also emphasized to the justices that a social media company was more like a parade or newspaper than a common carrier, trying to focus on the state of speech on the platform.

Aaron Nielson, Texass solicitor general, emphasized that social media platforms are a lot like telegraphs and that this nature should be why the state should restrict the sorts of censorship that platforms allow.

Nielson was questioned multiple times about how the state would handle its viewpoint-neutral emphasis. When asked how platforms could regulate viewpoint-neutral approaches to subjects such as terrorism, Nielson said platforms could just remove it. Instead of saying that you can have anti-al Qaeda but not the pro-al Qaeda, if you just want to say, Nobody is talking about al Qaeda here, they can turn that off, Nielson argued.

Court conclusions

The court appeared divided on the extent to which content moderation was allowed. On one hand, they saw government-enforced moderation as questionable, mainly if it focused on content. On the other hand, they criticized the power exerted by Big Tech companies. Justice Neil Gorsuch brought up the example of private messaging services such as Gmail deciding to delete communications due to them violating certain viewpoint communications, a matter that multiple justices brought up before Clement.

The court appeared bothered by the two cases being facial challenges, a legal term for cases in which a party claims that a specific law is unconstitutional and should be voided. This approach offers little flexibility for the Supreme Court since the court could not limit the laws effect to only a specific form of speech but leave other parts of the law intact.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Section 230, a part of the Communications Decency Act that protects platforms from being held accountable for content posted by third parties, was also brought up by the justices multiple times. The justices tried to weigh how that law would interact with the states attempts to block speech, as well as NetChoices arguments in favor of the platforms. Thomas argued that NetChoices argument that platforms had editorial control undermined its defense under Section 230.

The court is expected to release a decision on both cases sometime before July. The court will only be ruling on the preliminary injunction, which means that the decision will come quicker than other cases and that the decision will decide if the lower courts blocking of the laws will be upheld or overturned.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of GOP states in major internet free speech case - Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases on Monday that could set new precedents around free speech on social media platforms. The cases challenge two similar laws from Florida and Texas, respectively, which aim to reduce Silicon Valley censorship on social media, much like Elon Musk has done at X in the last year.

Twitter Verification is a Hot Mess

After four hours of opening arguments, Supreme Court Justices seemed unlikely to completely strike down Texas and Floridas laws, according to Bloomberg. Justice Clarence Thomas said social media companies were engaging in censorship. However, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether social media platforms are really a public square. If not, they wouldnt fall under the First Amendments protections.

At one point, the lawyer representing Texas shouted out, Sir, this is a Wendys. He was trying to prove a point about public squares and free speech, but it didnt make much sense.

The cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, both label social media platforms as a digital public square and would give states a say in how content is moderated. Both laws are concerned with conservative voices being silenced on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and other social media platforms, potentially infringing on the First Amendment.

Silencing conservative views is un-American, its un-Texan and its about to be illegal, said Texas Governor Greg Abbott on X in 2021, announcing one of the laws the Supreme Court is debating on Monday.

If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable, said Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in a 2021 press release, announcing his new law.

NetChoice, a coalition of techs biggest players, argues that these state laws infringe on a social media companys right to free speech. The cases have made their way to the United States highest court, and a decision could permanently change social media.

The laws could limit Facebooks ability to censor pro-Nazi content on its platform, for example. Social media companies have long been able to dictate what kind of content appears on their platform, but the topic has taken center stage in the last year. Musks X lost major advertisers following a rise in white supremacist content that appeared next to legacy brands, such as IBM and Apple.

NetChoice argues that social media networks are like newspapers, and they have a right to choose what appears on their pages, litigator Chris Marchese told The Verge. The New York Times is not required to let Donald Trump write an 0p-ed under the First Amendment, and NetChoice argues the same goes for social media.

NetChoices members include Google, Meta, TikTok, X, Amazon, Airbnb, and other Silicon Valley staples beyond social media platforms. The association was founded in 2001 to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.

Social and political issues have consumed technology companies in recent months. Googles new AI chatbot Gemini was accused of being racist against white people last week. In January, Mark Zuckerberg, sitting before Senate leaders, apologized to a room of parents who said Instagram contributed to their childrens suicides or exploitation.

Both of these laws were created shortly after Twitter, now X, banned Donald Trump in 2021. Since then, Musk has completely revamped the platform into a free speech absolutist site. Similar to Governors Abbot and DeSantis, Musk is also highly concerned with so-called liberal censorship on social media.

The Supreme Courts decision on these cases could have a meaningful impact on how controversy and discourse play out on social media. Congress has faced criticism for its limited role in regulating social media companies in the last two decades, but this decision could finally set some ground rules. Its unclear which way the Court will lean on these cases, as the issues have little precedent.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court Will Decide What Free Speech Means on Social Media - Gizmodo

Before his audition for The Ally, a new play by Itamar Moses, the actor Michael Khalid Karadsheh printed out the monologue that his character, Farid, a Palestinian student at an American university, would give in the second act.

The speech cites both the Mideast conflicts specific history and Farids personal testimony of, he says, the experience of moving through the world as the threat of violence incarnate. Karadsheh who booked the part was bowled over.

I dont think anyone has said these words about Palestine on a stage in New York in such a clear, concise, beautiful, poetic way, said Karadsheh, whose parents are from Jordan and who has ancestors who were from Birzeit in the West Bank.

Farids speech sits alongside others, though, in Mosess play: one delivered by an observant Jew branding much criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another by a Black lawyer connecting Israels policies toward Palestinians to police brutality in the United States; another by a Korean American bemoaning the mainstreams overlooking of East Asians. These speeches are invariably answered by rebuttals, which are answered by their own counter-rebuttals, all by characters who feel they have skin in the game.

In other words, The Ally, which opens Tuesday at the Public Theater in a production directed by Lila Neugebauer and starring Josh Radnor (How I Met Your Mother), is a not abstract and none too brief chronicle of our times, a minestrone of hot-button issues: Israelis and Palestinians, racism and antisemitism, free speech and campus politics, housing and gentrification, the excesses of progressivism even the tenuous employment of adjunct professors.

The rest is here:

The Ally, a Play About Israel and Free Speech, Tackles Big Issues - The New York Times

Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLUs mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organizations work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendments protections remain robust in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. Thats because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if theyre going to be preserved for everyone.

Some examples of our free speech work from recent years include:

See the original post here:

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

At the same time, all Americans should be deeply concerned about an avalanche of legislation passed by Republican-controlled legislatures around the country that gags discussion of certain topics and clearly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter of the law.

It goes far beyond conservative states yanking books about race and sex from public school libraries. Since 2021 in 40 state legislatures, 175 bills have been introduced or prefiled that target what teachers can say and what students can learn, often with severe penalties. Of those, 13 have become law in 11 states, and 106 are still under consideration. All told, 99 bills currently target K-12 public schools, 44 target higher education, and 59 include punishment for violators, according to a running tally kept by PEN America. In some instances, the proposed bills failed to become law. In other cases, the courts should declare them unconstitutional.

These bills include Floridas Dont Say Gay bill, which would restrict what teachers and students can talk about and allows for parents to file lawsuits. If the law goes into force, watch for lawsuits against schools that restrict the free speech rights of students to discuss things like sexuality, established by earlier Supreme Court rulings.

The new gag laws coincide with a similar barrage of bills that ostensibly target critical race theory, an idea that has percolated down from law schools to the broader public in recent years as a way to understand the pervasiveness of racism. The moral panic around critical race theory has morphed into a vast effort to restrict discussions of race, sex, American history and other topics that conservatives say are divisive. Several states have now passed these gag laws restricting what can be said in public schools, colleges and universities, and state agencies and institutions.

In passing laws that restrict speech, conservatives have adopted the language of harm that some liberals used in the past to restrict speech the idea that speech itself can cause an unacceptable harm, which has led to a proliferation of campus speech codes and the use of trigger warnings in college classrooms.

Now conservatives have used the idea of harmful speech to their own ends: An anti-critical-race-theory law in Tennessee passed last year, for instance, prohibits promoting the concept that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individuals race or sex a measure aimed at avoiding the distress that students might feel when learning about racist or misogynist elements of American history. (Unmentioned, of course, is the potential discomfort felt by students who are fed a whitewashed version of American history.)

Link:

Opinion | America Has a Free Speech Problem - The New York Times

xkcd: Free SpeechPreorder What If? 2 (all US preorders eligible) and enter our contest for a chance to win a dedicated comic and What If blog post!

Free Speech

[[A person speaking to the reader.]]Person: Public Service Announcehment: The *right to free speech* means the government can't arrest you for what you say.[[Close-up on person's face.]]Person: It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, - or host you while you share it.[[Back to full figure.]]Person: The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.[[Close-up.]]Person: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.[[Person, holding palm upward.]]Person: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,[[A door that is ajar.]]Person: And they're showing you the door.{{Title text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.}}

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.

Go here to read the rest:

xkcd: Free Speech

CHICAGO (AP) Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words Save the 1st scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.

The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

Jones took the stand Tuesday and Wednesday in his own defense.

Heres a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:

ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?

They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isnt protected speech.

Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.

Jones trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.

WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.

That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.

I dont know why they didnt cooperate, said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York Universitys First Amendment Watch. It is just really peculiar. ... Its so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.

It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.

It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied, said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesnt protect defamatory speech.

Speech is free, he said, but lies you have to pay for.

Jones lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.

If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebodys feelings, we are not in America anymore, he said.

Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.

WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly typically via the media and purporting that its true. An opinion cant be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someones reputation.

The parents suing Jones say his lies about their childs death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones followers.

IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?

Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.

In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove actual malice, that a false statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?

Their lawyers say they clearly arent in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.

The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.

Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.

WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?

The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.

Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.

He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.

CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIALS OUTCOME?

Indirectly, yes.

Jones cant argue that hes not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

Jurors could say (Jones defamatory statements) is actually something we dont want to punish very hard, said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.

COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.

But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.

It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook, said Solomon. Thats not opinion. It is a fact. Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, I think Alex Jones would still lose, he said.

But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.

I wouldnt discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed, he said. Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fools errand.

MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?

Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate, the ruling said.

But it and the Jones case have key differences.

They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one persons reputation Goldberg said.

He added: Id be shocked if (Jones) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.

___

For more of the APs coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings

More:

Is Alex Jones' trial about free speech rights? | AP News

Latest Feud

Another day, another Elon Musk feud on Twitter — except now, he's the owner of the social network, and he's beefing with a sitting member of Congress.

The whole thing started innocently enough earlier this week, when firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY, and better known by her initials, "AOC") subtweeted the website's new owner.

"Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that 'free speech' is actually a $8/mo subscription plan," the New York Democratic Socialist tweeted in a post that, upon Futurism's perusal, appeared to load only half the time.

Sweat Equity

Not one to be shown up, Musk later posted a screenshot of an AOC-branded sweatshirt from the congressperson's website, with its $58 price tag circled and an emoji belying the billionaire's alleged affront at the price.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez said she was proud her sweatshirts were made by union labor, and that the proceeds from their sales were going to fund educational support for needy kids. She later dug in further, noting that her account was "conveniently" not working and joking that Musk couldn't buy his way "out of insecurity."

Yo @elonmusk while I have your attention, why should people pay $8 just for their app to get bricked when they say something you don’t like?

This is what my app has looked like ever since my tweet upset you yesterday. What’s good? Doesn’t seem very free speechy to me pic.twitter.com/e3hcZ7T9up

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 3, 2022

Bricked

To be clear, any suggestion that Musk personally had anything to do with any Twitter glitches on AOC's part would seem ludicrously petty. But then again, this is a guy who once hired a private detective to investigate a random critic.

Occam's razor, though, suggests that it was probably AOC's mega-viral tweet that broke the site's notoriously dodgy infrastructure. Of course, that's not a ringing endorsement of the site that Musk just acquired for the colossal sum of $44 billion.

More on Twitter: Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

The post AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk appeared first on Futurism.

The rest is here:

AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk

How are book bans connected to free speech?

Those who are banning or limiting access to books often try to ensure that people dont think in certain ways, and that they dont speak in certain ways, or about certain topics. Banning books is an effort to make sure that difficult topics dont come up, especially in schools. This is an aspect of a broader political and cultural struggle over who belongs, or what values prevail in American society.

In your view, why are book bans and challenges increasing now?

The issue of book banning within the context of the broader culture wars has two different dimensions. One is the electoral, partisan, political-power-play aspect: Its a way to get peoples attention, to get people riled up and angry, to get them to pay more attention to politics and come out to vote. Books, curricula, teachers, schools, these are everywhere in every community. Close to 90% of American kids go to public school. So, if you find something in school that really angers people, is upsetting, its easy to get attention. The other aspect is more substantive, and that is the struggle to define the boundaries of the political community in America. In other words, who belongs? Whose voices should be heard? And today again the two most salient aspects of this are race, along with gender and sexuality; these are the main topics of books that are being questioned or pulled out of the libraries in different ways, being censored, being cancelled.

The struggle over race is a really a response, or a push back, to the racial justice wave that we have seen after the murder of George Floyd two years ago. I think the growing perception around the country is that a broad coalition of people who were very angry, who were awakened to aspects of racial injustice that maybe they were unaware of, or just didnt pay attention to, or previously didnt care too much about, especially non-Black people, this broad coalition joined with Black Americans and was looking to schools and to cultural artifacts like books to sustain this attention and commitment to preventing these injustices from happening. Curricula and books and schools and teachers were a way to sustain this effort, to say: We cant go on like this, we have to change the way that certain institutions, like the police, are treating Black people, but also more broadly the racial injustice seen for a very long time in this country. An effort to say, Lets use this moment to train teachers, to expose children to these issues, to make sure that we are making a difference here. Book banning is a backlash to that movement.

And the backlash is similar regarding sexuality and gender expression. We have seen the legal recognition of marriage equality. We are seeing the proliferation of books and materials in classrooms and libraries in celebration of Pride Month, and the greater visibility and cultural acceptance of transgender, and nonbinary, and diverse-gender-expression individuals in books and movies and society. We are seeing more recognition of equal rights, or the demand for equal rights and equal representation, of individuals with diverse forms of gender expression and diverse identities in the domain of gender and sexuality.

Book banning is a pushback against these efforts to expand our vision of our community, to try to entrench and limit again the scope of what is appropriate and what is desirable.

What is next?

I assume this struggle will continue at the local and national levels, especially in schools. Books in schools and in libraries are just easier to regulate. Its harder to regulate which characters you have on a Netflix show, but its pretty easy, relatively speaking, to elect people to state and local government, to school boards, who say, for example, These books are corruptive, or These are not age-appropriate, or We are reviewing these books, and creating processes for approving books that end up impoverishing libraries and curricular material in the presentation of diverse people. Which obviously is a disconcerting, because people have diverse identities, and theyre here, in our neighborhoods and classrooms, theyre not going anywhere, so trying to erase them from our cultural materials, from a book, from our teaching materials, does nothing to make them disappear. In reality, it makes them hide. It makes them shameful and uncomfortable and feel rejected. The book bans are telling them that they are not accepted as equal members of our community. I am encouraged by the efforts at the local and national levels to organize and to push back against book bans.

What is the effect of these book bans?

My worry is that at least in the areas where these efforts gain ground, you will see people who are not aligned with this conservative vision of appropriate behavior, of being proper and respectable people, just not finding room for themselves. You will see people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, gay and trans people, recognize that some prominent members of their community would prefer that they not be there. I think thats a terrible message to send to anyone, and definitely to young children.

This is not new to LGBTQ folks, who are being pushed back into the closet through the mechanism of erasing their presence in the public domain with the message: You shouldnt be out as an individual, and We shouldnt encourage you to be out by representing you positively in a book, or a TV show, or a film.

Regarding the racial issue, its a little different. Those who are seeking to ban books about racial history and relations, about injustice or inequality, are trying to minimize both the history of slavery and discussion on injustices today. Its an effort to represent history since the Civil Rights movement as having fixed any issues Black Americans face. It is an effort to cleanse the public discourse from references to unpleasant, uncomfortable truths, about American history and current reality, a discussion that is deemed uncomfortable for white people, and in particular white children. This effort, which is represented by banning books, for example about Martin Luther King Junior or Ruby Bridges, is really at the heart of book banning. I dont think thats a good goal for educators. Complex, complicated, age-appropriate conversations are hard, but the fact that its hard does not means that it needs to be scrubbed away. Teachers need to be supported in having these conversations, and books are a great aid for that.

Do book bans really make much of a difference, with access to just about anything via cell phone or computer?

What you read at school is very nice and good and important, but its definitely not the main avenue through which you get your information, and your understanding of your society. Of course, a lot of the same people who are banning books are also trying to regulate social media and the Internet. So, while the effort to censor is not focused only on books, I am very concerned about the limitations on books, I think about children and young people who live in less-affluent areas, or where theres less diversity, and where you don't always have broadband, and not every kid has an iPhone in their pocket. What do you do if youre the one Muslim kid in your school? What do you do if you are 13 and think that you are gay?

I also worry culturally about the message that were sending, because even if you can get information through your phone, the book ban lets you know that those in your communitymaybe your own teachers or elected officialssee these aspects of your reality and identity as something to be ashamed of, to be embarrassed about, to be silent about, something that doesnt belong. Kids get this message, which is both personally difficult and socially chilling.

How can higher education be involved?

Truth and inclusion should, in my view, serve as the guiding principles for organizing the public discourse around difficult topics.

We need tools for assessing the effort to cancel or silence different forms of expression, through banning books and other means. What is a reasonable argument about a book being inappropriate for a classroom? Can we agree about criteria for selecting books and teaching materials? Truth and inclusion are the two main dimensions of assessing the arguments. One, we need to refer to evidence, as accepted by relevant studies, to assess what should or should not be a part of our teaching materials. The second is a question of inclusion: We need to ensure that people who are within our community can properly see themselves as belonging, as positively represented. How do you create equal standing for everyone who lives here, and ensure that they have their voices heard?

Institutions of higher education are important for developing evidenced-based tools for assessment. They can also help advocate for using truth and inclusion as the guiding principles for learning in K-12 schools. Similar struggles are taking place on college campuses, and the culture wars over the boundaries of speech are familiar to us. Higher education is already setting the expectations for what children should learn in school, through our admissions policies and what we expect high school graduates to know. We should support schools by calling for inclusive learning environments, reliance on evidence-based decisions about teaching materials, and above all, free thought and free inquiry.

Original post:

On book bans and free speech | Penn Today - Penn Today

by DAVID KEATING

Assaults on the culture of free speech grow by the day. Unfortunately, much of the assault is coming from the major social media platforms.

The power of our democracy and the genius of our First Amendment is our recognition that no single authority can dictate what is true. We work out our disagreements through speech, publishing, and organizing into groups.

For centuries, reaching others with our views was difficult work, and in many respects it still is. But thanks to social media, most Americans can publish anything and theoretically reach millions of fellow citizens and even much of the world.

As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, social media platforms for many are the principal sources for speaking and listening in the modern public square, where Americans share vital information and express their opinions.

Social media allowed more Americans to engage in public speech than ever before, but like past revolutions in communications technology, it also triggered a backlash. Politicians, media outlets, or activists increasingly pressure companies to censor speech they deem false or misleading, or simply oppose. Lately, much of this speech concerns issues related to elections and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Certainly, you can find false claims about both topics online (and off) with ease. Yet the platforms judgments are far from infallible, and their heavy hand threatens to stifle important debates about unsettled issues. In fact, this has already happened.

Early in the pandemic, Facebook and YouTube censored claims that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab leak in China, a theory that remains plausible to this day. And, of course, Twitter and Facebook restricted the New York Posts reporting about emails on Hunter Bidens laptop in the leadup to the 2020 election, claiming they were the product of foreign misinformation. After the election, the emails proved to be authentic.

Many Democrats have encouraged this trend towards censorship. Recall that then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki urged faster action against harmful posts and suspension of accounts across all platforms. The Biden Administration created the so-called Disinformation Governance Board before disbanding it in response to public outrage.

Many Republicans say they oppose censorship but want to repeal Section 230, which immunizes social media companies from liability for posts by users. That would likely result in even more censorship from platforms eager to avoid costly litigation. It would also make it effectively impossible for new social media companies to take down the incumbents.

What to do?

Lets stipulate that there are no easy answers. But many of the actions taken now pose real threats to free speech while doing little to stop misinformation and may enable more of it.

Some of the wealthiest corporations in the world operate social media sites, and their mission is to maximize profits. Getting on the wrong side of government officials is bad for business. This creates terrible incentives for the platforms to censor based on the views of the party in power.

Politicians who attempt to influence platforms speech policies are a menace to free speech. Platforms should focus on empowering their users, not their critics or the government, to control what content they see.

The government has a role to play in protecting free speech on the internet. We can create ethics laws and rules preventing government officials from using threats against platforms to get them to censor. And we should consider creating a legal defense against government enforcement actions against social media platforms if the government initiates action based on its interest in retaliating against a platforms refusal to censor or silence itself or its users.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements.

We also need more information on how the platforms use algorithms to promote and suppress content. Right now, all we get are random information dumps from whistleblowers. If no one knows how social medias black box algorithms are working and failing, how can we come up with sensible government policies?

Ultimately, the solution must come from the platforms themselves. They should return to the more speech-friendly mindset embraced before 2016. Taking on the role of a private sector Ministry of Truth has been a disaster for their reputations with no clear benefit to the public. And it is especially dangerous given the threats wielded by government officials against the platforms.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements. The technology that we use to express ourselves has changed many times, from the printing press to the telegraph to radio and television and now, to social media. The underlying principles of the First Amendment will always stand the test of time.

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, DC.

See the original post here:

To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must Stop their Overreach - The Ripon Society

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II

[Editors note: Recently the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the national civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, of his conviction for trespassing that resulted from a 2017 demonstration at the state Legislative Building. Today, in response to the courts decision, Rev. Barber returned to the Legislative Building to offer the following remarks.]

Even though the highest court wont hear us, we must continue to ask, What is the decibel level of free speech? And who determines whether the authorities are disturbed and protestors have to cease their protest in a public building?

On the day of our arrest, I asked the officer that question: How loud can we be? The basic answer was, Somebody says its disturbing them. The Constitution says freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained.

The officers that day said they did not know how loud free speech could be so we asked the court to decide. In essence, we were arrested because someone said our message bothered them. The answer to the question of what was allowable was never answered. None of the work of the General Assembly suffered that day, but the rights of the people did. The people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated, according to the Constitution.

Our aim was to remind our representatives that all political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

I wear arrest as a badge of honor.

If Im charged and convicted for nonviolently standing with the least of these, its an honor.

I, along with other people of faith, are required by the love espoused in our faith to challenge the governments of nations to care for the least of these. The prophets of old told us to say, Woe unto those who legislate evil and rob the poor of their rights and make women and children their prey. Even our Constitution calls us to remind those who hold political power that beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state.

If I am charged with using my preaching voice to demand Medicaid expansion for thousands of poor and low-wage workers while Republican legislators block it, or if Im charged for standing with others to speak out for poor and low wage people to make a minimum living of $15 an hour, I will always fight for the right to stand for voting rights, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, womens rights, and even the free speech rights of my opponents. Im neither perfect nor always right, but as a gospel preacher and a bishop of the church, Im supposed to preach in season and out of season. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is good news to the poor.

The Bible tells me to raise my voice with others like a trumpet. If it means Im charged and eventually have to spend time with others in prison, its a small price to pay. I cannot remain silent while Gods children suffer for no reason other than the poor choices of our elected officials.

Read the original here:

Rev. William Barber: How loud is free speech permitted to be? - The Progressive Pulse

MORE than three-fifths of UK women dont say what they are thinking on sensitive issues because they are scared they might get into trouble.

The figure for men is only slightly lower, at 52 per cent.

7

The majority of the population, then, holding its tongue. Watching its Ps and Qs.

The things they think they cant express without censure concern stuff like immigration.

But also suggesting that ethnic minority people have life just the same as the rest of us.

And that someone born with a whopping great todger is a man, end of story.

This poll, conducted by YouGov, came out towards the end of last year.

We pride ourselves in this country of having freedom of speech.

But that hasnt been true for at least two decades. Its a thing of the past, like Toast Toppers and the hula hoop.

When a bloke can receive a visit from the coppers and be told to watch his thinking for having retweeted a joke about transgendering, you know were in BIG trouble.

Likewise when the radical Left tries to silence brilliant speakers, such as the feminist Germaine Greer or the veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Meanwhile, the students are busy cancelling our entire history on account of slavery.

Suggest that Islam has been implicated in one or two terrorist attacks and youll be accused of Islamophobia and may get a visit from Plod. Even though its demonstrably true.

Freedom of speech has been under sustained attack for a long while now. And the Government has done nothing about it.

I would like to think that is about to change, as a consequence of the Queens Speech this week.

A new Bill of Rights is due to be introduced in the next month or so to replace the Human Rights Act.

And the Government has promised that the right to voice your opinions, regardless of if they offend some melting snowflake, will supposedly be the crucial part of this bill.

The Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said: I feel very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether by the privacy issue or whether its wokery and political correctness.

I worry about those parameters of free speech being narrowed.Well, sure, Dom and about time too.

The Left argues that silencing people is simply a means of preventing minorities from feeling a bit upset.

But I think they are a little more resilient than the social justice warriors like to make out.

In fact, that is not the reason for our politically correct cancel culture.

The real reason is that the Left wants to close down debate on subjects where its policies simply dont add up.

They are terrified rightly that the vast majority of people in the country simply dont agree with them. Just as that YouGov opinion poll proved.

Punishing people who state uncomfortable truths means far fewer people actually say them. They keep schtum.

But the silencing of debate also breeds resentment and rancour: You cant say THAT any more!

And it attacks the entire basis of our democracy: The right to freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I just hope this bill goes far enough. I hope it abolishes the concept of non-criminal hate crime, for a start.

I hope it forces universities to realise that a minority of the perpetually offended cannot stop outside speakers from addressing those who want to hear them.

Its been a long time coming, this bill.

But at least the Government recognises there is a real problem a very big problem.

And is committed to doing something about it.

YAY! The Social Democratic Partys Wayne Dixon swept into office on a landslide in Leeds last week.

Evicting Labour for the first time in history.

7

The dim-witted Labour candidate wouldnt even shake his hand.

Ha, who cares? It just goes to show that if people think the two main parties can be beaten, voters will turn out.

Were the party that knows what a woman is, and doesnt want all our statues thrown in the river.

Well done Wayne and if you get a chance, look at the YouTube video of his wife jumping for joy at the election result.

Its a hoot.

DO you remember the days when flying was...well, if not great fun, at least easy to do and efficient?

What the hell has happened?

7

We have queues a mile long at our airports.

Some of this is the consequence of Covid, of course.

Too many people are still taking weeks off work with this ineffectual illness.

But the threat of terrorism has also made taking a flight a real pain in the neck.

And then theres the exorbitant cost, occasioned by huge fuel prices.

And always the chance that some unwashed XR hippy div will try to shame you for going on an aeroplane at all.

Think Ill be spending the summer here in Blighty.

These days, foreign travel is just not worth the effort.

King Charles

WELL, he managed to open Parliament without cocking it up.

He walked in a kingly manner through the lobby without stopping to talk to any plants on the way.

He managed to read the Queens Speech.

Without inserting any mental bits about how we should all try homeopathy.

He didnt pass wind or do that annoying wringing of his hands thing he sometimes does.

Maybe Charlie will make a decent King, then.

The last King Charles we had was one of our better monarchs.

I KNOW hes a surfer dude vegan who likes sickly soft rock.

But theres something likeable about our Eurovision contestant Sam Ryder.

7

And hes got a decent voice and a decent tune.

I daresay well come last again, because everybody (except for Ukraine) hates us.

In fact, if Ukraine doesnt win by a mile Ill eat my own fingers.

But at least this time I wont have to hide behind the sofa in shame as usual when the UKs entrant is on.

AND so...Sir Keir Starmer is revealed as being even more weaselly and deceitful than the Prime Minister.

Which takes some doing, frankly.

7

This is the man who demanded more and more Covid restrictions.

Nothing was enough for him. Hed have had us all chained up in the garden shed if hed had his way.

And he demanded the Prime Minister MUST resign when it was revealed Boris Johnson was being investigated by the Old Bill.

But he will not resign himself when being investigated by the Old Bill.

Hell only resign if he gets a fixed penalty notice.

Which the Durham coppers have said they will not do retrospectively.

The nerve of the bloke is gobsmacking.

And never has a petard been hoisted higher.

WHATS wrong with a chipolata? You can get quite big chipolatas.

Id be delighted if some babe said my old fella resembled a tasty and satisfying sausage.

7

All I get instead is references to button mushrooms and, on one occasion, a Midget Gem.

You can hold your head up, Peter Andre.

At least it wasnt a Peperami.

Teacher assessment

THIS is a time of great and frantic worry in the Liddle household.

My daughter is doing her GCSEs. So shes a bit... yknow...STRESSY.

And she asked at one stage: What exactly is the point of these exams?

And do you know, I wonder the same myself.

Tony Blairs son, Euan, has just called for GCSEs to be scrapped. I think hes right.

At 16, the kids should be assessed by their teachers.

Leave the serious exams until A-levels come along.

It would certainly make for a happier house up here.

ISNT it kind of French president Emmanuel Macron to suggest we can join a European alliance?

This would be a politically integrated (his words) trading alliance of European countries.

7

Does the description remind you of anything? The man is deluded.

Whyja think we got out in the first place?

Try to govern your own basket-case country and mind your own business.

Oh, and leave our fish alone.

See the rest here:

Weve not had free speech in 20 years. But thats changing... - The US Sun

We expect a great deal of criticism of our new book, Its Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, but we were taken aback by Jeffrey Aaron Snyders misconstrual of its main argument. If you go by Snyder, weve written a deeply flawed book attacking three racists that is bound to get attention because of its bold thesis. Snyder positions himself, in his essays in these pages, as a defender of free speech against left overreach and the excesses of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and he has also written a notable entry in the free speech is threatened by both sides subgenre. Articles like those can help fuel exaggerated perceptions of campus politics, but we do not begrudge him this territory. Its just not our territory. We are not interested in saving free speech: We are interested in saving academic freedom from free speech. Its Not Free Speech explains how academic freedom differs from free speech and why that difference is of great importance in the era of what Richard Hasen calls cheap speech.

At one point, Snyder invokes the authoritarian legislation sweeping the country and snarkily suggests that our time would have been better spent mobilizing resistance to that even though much of Chapter 4, Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory Today?, is devoted to explaining those attacks and their origins. (As it happens, Jennifer does spend her time promoting the African American Policy Forums campaign against those bills.) But the real issue is that Snyder does not grasp the main point of the book. Its Not Free Speech is an argument against the bills and the right-wing movement behind them (calling them a perfect, and perfectly hideous, example of intellectual authoritarianism), precisely because it insists that academic freedom is the collective responsibility of faculty members in their disciplines. It is not something politicians can interfere with without destroying the role of the university in a democratic society (as Jennifer has argued in these pages). Central to the book is the belief that academic-freedom cases must be placed in the hands of faculty peers, not administrators vulnerable to outside political pressures or the courts with their wildly uneven record on academic freedom.

So the issue here is not just a misrepresentation here and a misconstrual there. There is something more important at stake: a real disagreement about the relation of academic freedom to free speech.

But as for those misrepresentations: the most serious concerns Snyders claim that we would rule out of bounds any debate about Brown v. Board of Education. This claim rests on a sloppy reading of two sentences in chapter four: Some things are not worthy of entertaining as if we could pretend they were bloodless. Whether Brown v. Board of Education should have happened is one. The phrase should have happened comes from a Princeton undergraduate, Brittani Telfair, who was arguing that some debates do not make symmetric asks. Black people who have to argue, again and again, against the premises of segregation and Jim Crow are not in a symmetric relation to people whose forebears never experienced segregation and Jim Crow. This is an important and, we hope, by now elementary point about the difference between free speech in theory and free speech in practice. Brittney Cooper made it brilliantly back in 2017 in these pages. Snyder implies that by the logic of our book the kinds of arguments made by Derrick Bell regarding how Black children might conceivably have been better off under Plessy v. Ferguson or by Gloria Ladson-Billings on the price paid for Brown v. Board would be off limits. This strikes us as absurd, and we think will strike careful readers of the book as absurd as well.

Snyder missed that point by focusing on the phrase not worthy of entertaining and ignoring as if we could pretend they were bloodless. He also ignores our citation of our Black colleagues Carolyn Rouse and Mark James, who, in the pages that lead up to those two sentences, explain that debating the virtues of segregation or the benefits of colonialism puts Black people in the position of having to take seriously the belief that racism is and always has been justified and having to pretend that the question is bloodless. Of course debate about Brown v. Board is legitimate. The only ideas were proposing to exclude or to put in the dustbin alongside phrenology and phlogiston are the white supremacist ones that provided the foundations for Jim Crow, for eugenics, and for the Holocaust.

But then, Snyder takes things out of context, while cleverly accusing us of taking things out of context. He writes: The authors refer to legions of racist professors and the entrenched, unshakeable beliefs of the white-supremacist professoriate. Snyder does not explain that the phrase refers to the historians of the Dunning School, who devoted their careers to arguing that Reconstruction failed because Black people are incapable of self-government, and that the second phrase was delivered in the context of a discussion of Gregory Christainsen, now retired from California State University-East Bay, a race realist who taught students that there are measurable differences in the intelligence of various races; that these differences are captured in IQ scores; and that they are attributable to genetics rather than to social variables. Anyone familiar with the legacy of pseudoscientific racism would know that these beliefs are indeed entrenched and unshakeable. (Christainsens field? Economics.) His university ignored student complaints about his courses, as readers of our book will learn. We do not think that the professoriate is packed with Klan members; we do think that there are some zombie ideas that keep making a comeback despite their being repeatedly discredited.

James Yang for The Chronicle

It is fitting, somehow, that when Snyder baselessly accuses us of taking a professors words out of context, the professor in question is the notorious Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania. Snyder objects to our calling Wax a white supremacist: The authors evidence consists of two excerpts, largely stripped of context, from a speech that Wax gave at the 2019 National Conservatism conference. In that speech, which we discuss in detail, Wax promoted a cultural distance nationalism whose premise is that we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance or, more succinctly, our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Snyder writes, Without seeking additional information beyond what they have presented, I am not sure how many people would feel qualified to judge whether Wax is a white supremacist. I dont. But when someone says that white people are better (more civilized, more advanced) than nonwhite people, that is literally white supremacism. We cant imagine what else to call it. (Fortunately, The Chronicle provided a link to Waxs speech in Snyders essay, so curious readers can read her remarks for themselves.)

This disagreement about Wax brings us to another fundamental misrepresentation in Snyders review: the implication that we are the ones calling these shots or ruling anything out of court. We explicitly say that we are not. We are calling for what the American Association of University Professors has long considered best practice: a deliberative process, with authority distributed among a horizontal panel of peers in the relevant fields. Too many cases today, we argue, are decided without such a process and, importantly, this includes the adjunct instructor who can simply not be rehired to appease complaining students, parents, or donors. We think academic-freedom committees can do a better job adjudicating the controversies that pop up almost daily than can an individual provost, a series of tweets, or arguments made in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Free speech as a slogan once served dissenting voices and struggles (the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was about the right to protest the Vietnam War on campus), but thats not how it typically functions today. In the public sphere, it facilitates hate speech and conspiracy theories. Most important, the widespread conflation of free speech and academic freedom makes it incredibly difficult for universities to do their jobs, which is to discriminate between high-quality speech (which refers to disciplinary expertise and is protected by academic freedom) and low-quality speech (which refers to ungrounded opinion).

The First Amendment doesnt demand or expect that speech be responsible or informed in any way, but academic speech speech with a claim to expertise does. That distinction is critical. When commentators ritualistically frame every academic disagreement in terms of free speech, they blur an essential distinction and facilitate the movement by which self-interested and partisan forces actively undermine democracy.

The contribution of Its Not Free Speech is not so much to recognize that content-free ideals like free speech work differently at different times on playing fields that have never been even; many people understand this better than we do. (We turn to the philosopher Charles W. Mills for help with this). Our contribution is, we hope, to think about what these insights about content-free ideals, cheap speech, and who makes judgment calls in the academic arena now mean for how we realize academic freedom. Of course, we are not the only ones trying to think this through. A growing body of work analyzes the relationship of power to academic freedom: We are thinking, for example, of Steven Salaitas Uncivil Rites; Johnny E. Williamss article The Academic Freedom Double Standard: Freedom for Courtiers, Suppression for Critical Scholars in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom; and Reshmi-Dutt Ballerstadt and Kakali Bhattacharyas collection, Civility, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education.

We welcome spirited discussion of Its Not Free Speech. We hope, though, that it will be discussion aimed at addressing some of the serious problems we face in academe and in democracy.

Original post:

Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Much is made of Elon Musk taking over complete control of the online platform Twitter in the next three to six months. Musk has made no secret of his disdain for some of Twitters moderation policies. Presently Twitters stated priorities are facilitating safe, inclusive, and authentic conversations and minimizing the distribution and reach of harmful or misleading information, especially when its intent is to disrupt a civic process or cause offline harm. Efforts to roll back Twitters recent policies could lead to an uptick in disinformation, extremist content, harassment, and hate speech that the company has tried to crack down on for years.

Many Republicans meaning Trump followers are happy because they see Musk opening Twitter to absolute freedom of speech. Also celebrating the takeover of Twitter are white supremacist groups and conspiracists that see a way to return to the platform. Twitter may also be reopened to Trump who was banned as a threat to democracy after Jan. 6. Trump says he wont return to Twitter and, of course, his followers know he always tells the truth. (Putin would be happy with the further deterioration of our democracy with the spread of hate and division that an unfettered Twitter would offer.)

All of us defend freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. Categories of speech that the First Amendment does not protect include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. That is the way the courts interpret free speech.

Companies like Twitter, however, set their own rules for speech as to what is acceptable. In a few months Musk will make those decisions. Hopefully he allows opinion based on truth and facts and wont allow it to be a platform to further spread more hate and division. We have too much of that already.

Jack Strausser,

Elysburg

Go here to read the rest:

Twitter and free speech | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt argues the government's alleged collusion with Big Tech to violate the First Amendment 'needs to stop.'

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt slammed the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech, arguing his lawsuit will take on big government and Big Tech, "two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there."

ERIC SCHMITT: The government can't violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech, and the government can't outsource that also to the Big Tech partners. And that's what we're alleging in this lawsuit. And we're taking on two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there, big government and Big Tech

FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS BIDENS 'DISINFORMATION BOARD' IS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

First, they hold over these special protections that big tech has, principally section 230, which makes them immune from typical liability because they're not considered a publisher. So they hold that over, the left does, unless they censor more.

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses the Biden administration's alleged collusion with Big Tech during "Varney & Co." on May 9, 2022. (Fox News)

MUSK HOPES TO BUILD BRAND TRUST THROUGH FREE SPEECH, TRANSPARENCY WHICH 'BIG TECH NEEDS': FMR PARLER CEO

The second way they do it is the direct collusion that we see now and Jen Psaki in press conferences has told us with her own words that they're working directly with Facebook to flag, quote unquote, disinformation. And this has played itself out on a number of different fronts, whether it was the laptop from hell, election integrity issues, certainly during COVID with the origins of COVID and then with the efficacy of masks. So those are just a few examples. But in this lawsuit, we're essentially alleging that they're violating the First Amendment, and they're doing it with their big tech partners, and it needs to stop.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses his lawsuit against the Biden administration and top officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech.

Go here to see the original:

Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions - Fox Business

Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 7, formally titled the Individual Freedom measure, which bans educators from teaching certain topics related to race and prevents them from making students feel guilt or shame about their race because of historical events. In addition, by April more than 1,500 books primarily dealing with race and LGBTQ issues had been banned in U.S. school districts over the previous nine months. These measures have been described as a rightwing censorship effort unparalleled in its intensity.

Behind these efforts to cancel progressive views lies the mistaken belief that campuses have become laboratories for political indoctrination. As DeSantis stated after signing the repressive legislation: We believe in education, not indoctrination. Yet, the governor and the Republican Party fail to provide significant evidence of such indoctrination.

Many commentators, for example, have noted that Critical Race Theory, a primary right-wing target for cancellation, is actually not taught in public schools and rarely mentioned in colleges. During my 30 years of college teaching, I personally never witnessed professors pushing political indoctrination from the left or the right in the classroom. The Republican Partys highly political attack on public and higher education in America creates confusion and discord and does not solve any actual problems.

It is crucial to clarify the distinction between the campus as a public space as different from the classroom as a space for teaching. Princeton Professor Wendy Brown notes that the classroom is a space where were not talking left wing or right wing but offering the learning that students need to be able to come to their own positions and judgments. In other words, the classroom is centered on academic freedom and the development of critical thinking. The professor through his or her selection of course materials and lesson plans establish the agenda and the direction of the discussion. All views are welcome that contribute to the topic, but the direction and objectives of the course are set by the teacher.

In contrast, the campus is a public space where free speech should be the norm. Neither governors, legislators, administrators or professors have the right to impose their political biases on the campus community. At all the colleges I have taught, speakers from the left and right were consistently encouraged to participate in the civic life of the campus.

The Republican Party attacks on public and college education have blurred this important distinction between academic freedom in the classroom and free speech on campus. Perhaps an example from my experience can demonstrate the importance of academic freedom in the classroom and the dangers of the current repressive political measures adopted by the state of Florida.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

For many years at Eckerd College, I was honored to give the opening lecture on the liberal arts to all of our new first-year students. I consistently began this lecture with a reading of Langston Hughes brilliant poem Let America Be America Again. Through his poetry, Langston Hughes reminds us of the hope and dream of America. He cries out: O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned where equality is in the air we breathe. Let it be the dream it used to be.

While presenting pleasing patriotic images of America, Hughes makes us question these images. Hughes writes: There never has been equality for me, Nor freedom in this homeland of the free. I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slaverys scars. I am the red man driven from the land.

These lines remind us of the atrocities, such as the violence of slavery, that are also America. And yet, Hughes ends on an optimistic truly American note, the idea of hope. He hopes that America can be all the things it was expected to be. He will not give up on the idea of the American Dream. He wants America to be better. I told the students that Langston Hughes represented the best of the liberal scholar seeking the truth, writing clearly, persuasively and movingly on the major ethical issues of his time racism and discrimination. Langston Hughes helps students more deeply appreciate the struggle for true freedom in America.

Unfortunately, a few right-wing alumni and parents posted angry notes on social media denouncing this lecture. In their eyes, Langston Hughes was desecrating America and my lecture was left-wing political indoctrination, which made white students feel bad. They sought to cancel one of the most celebrated African-American writers from the curriculum and destroy academic freedom in the classroom. The new Florida law will further empower these individuals with political agendas to more effectively pursue their dangerous goals.

It is also unfortunate that these critics didnt take the time to actually examine the content of this course. In addition to Langston Hughes, the students were also engaged with the works of conservative thinkers, including theologian C.S. Lewis and philosopher Ayn Rand. We were trying to get students to think critically about all of these important thinkers and decide for themselves what to think. This can only happen in an atmosphere of engagement, active learning and open discussion of all points of view the opposite of political indoctrination. The Republican Partys outrage machine is more interested in canceling leftist views, stoking controversy and scoring political points than in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

William F. Felice, professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College, was the named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He can be reached via his website at williamfelice.com.

Read more from the original source:

We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Bill Maher delivered a scorching attack on the movement in the U.S. to censor what we say ... and gotta say, it may be his best commentary in a long time.

The "Real Time" host declared his position from the jump -- "Sorting out lies from truth is your job," adding it's ridiculous we treat everyone like "helpless dumb blondes ready to believe everything ... like Donald Trump!"

He makes the point ... people living today aren't special -- as he says, every age is the misinformation age. He harkens back to 1858, when the New York Times worried Americans couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph because it was "superficial and too fast for the truth."

Go back even further, Bill says, to 1487, when the Pope cautioned against the misuse of the printing press, saying it was the source of pernicious writing -- hmmm, sounds like fake news.

And, then there's radio ... in 1938, some listeners freaked out listening to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds," believing the Martians invaded New Jersey.

As Bill says, lies are everywhere ... like germs. He says you can't germproof the world, so develop a better bull*** meter.

And, then he makes a brilliant point ... "Sometimes misinformation is history's first draft" -- like the stories that circulated about COVID -- that 50% of those who are unvaccinated become hospitalized when it's less than 1%.

To drive home the point, he notes lots of folks believe in "an imaginary best friend in the sky who they can talk to to help them with their problems." Bill asks if there should be a warning label on that.

He's all for banning things like child porn, calls for insurrection, personal threats, etc, but people should be able to express their opinions even if they are repugnant. And, deciding whether something is true, half-true, a quarter true or false ... well that's our job, not the job of some publisher.

In sum, Bill says people have the right to be assholes and express ridiculous opinions. That's called free speech. That's called democracy -- it's as messy as it is precious.

Read more:

Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech - TMZ