Milo Yiannopoulos got some unexpected support this week from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The former Breitbart news editor and internet troll released a self-published memoir, Dangerous,last month to mostly negative reviews. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ACLU argued that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority violated Yiannopoulos right to free speech when it refused to let him promote the book which has been described as desperate and largely boring on the Washington, D.C., metro. (As it turns out, the New York subway didnt have similar qualms.)

The British-born Yiannopoulos is among several clients including abortion and birth control provider Carafemand the animal advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animalsnamed in the ACLUs lawsuit, according to the Los Angeles Times. The suit stems from WMATA guidelines that forbid advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions, which the ACLU believes is too vague.Given Yiannopoulos history of mocking Muslims, feminists, the LGBTQ communityand the Black Lives Matter movement, however, the conservative authors inclusion in the suit sparked instant controversy.

Acknowledging that 32-year-old Yiannopoulostrades on outrage, ACLU officials nonetheless explained their choice to defend him in a Wednesday blog post on the groups official website. The ACLU condemns many of the values he espouses (and he, of course, condemns many of the values the ACLU espouses), they wrote.

Though WMATA initially accepted the Dangerous ads anddisplayed them in Metro stations and subway cars, they were removed 10 days later after passengers complained, the ACLU alleges. To anyone whod be outraged to see Mr. Yiannopoulos advertisement please recognize that if he comes down, so do we all, ACLU officials wrote. The First Amendment doesnt, and shouldnt, tolerate that kind of impoverishment of our public conversation. Not even in the subway.

James Esseks, who is the director of the ACLUs LGBT & HIV Project, defended his organizations decision to represent Yiannopoulos in a second blog, also published Wednesday. Some people may say that Mr. Yiannopoulos offensive speech sets him apart and doesnt deserve to be defended. But the sad reality is that many people think that speech about sexuality, gender identity, or abortion is over the line as well, he wrote. If First Amendment protections are eroded at any level, its not hard to imagine the government successfully pushing one or more of those arguments in court.

Though the ACLU has a liberal reputation, the organization has previously represented people and groupswhose values lie at the opposite end of the political spectrum, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church and conservative talk radio personalityRush Limbaugh.Still, support for their defense of Yiannopoulos was not unanimous across staff members. Chase Strangio, an ACLU staff attorney best known for defending U.S. military whistleblower and transgender activist Chelsea Manning, blasted the decision in a lengthy note posted to Twitter on Wednesday.

Calling Yiannopoulosvile and a reprehensible person,Strangio wrote,I dont believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases. His actions have consequences for people that I care about and for me.

Meanwhile, Yiannopoulos told the Los Angeles Times that he wasglad that the ACLU has decided to tackle a real civil rights issue, adding, Free speech isnt about only support[ing] speech you agree with, it is about supporting all speech especially the words of your enemies. Strong opponents keep us honest.

Find ways to combat bigotry by subscribing to theQueer Voices newsletter.

Original post:

ACLU Will Defend Milo Yiannopoulos' Right To Free Speech - HuffPost

By Fredrik deBoer By Fredrik deBoer August 11 at 6:00 AM

Fredrik deBoer is an academic and writer based in Brooklyn.

When Google fired James Damore this week for circulating a bizarre and offensive attack on their diversity practices, free speech advocates rushed to his defense, accusing the company of curtailing his right to free speech. The trouble was that hed written his memo and sent it to colleagues, imperiling his ability to have a healthy working relationship with his peers. Surely he knew, when he signed his employment contract, that hed have to abide by the companys code of conduct. It is Googles prerogative to decide what is right and wrong to say at the office.

But corporations arent just enforcing speech codes at the office. Increasingly, they are cracking down on their workers expression outside of it. In 2009, a Philadelphia Eagles stadium worker was fired for criticizing the teams personnel moves in a Facebook post. That same year, Georgia public school teacher Ashley Payne was forced to resign, she says, for posting pictures of herself drinking beer and wine while on vacation. An Ohio woman, Patricia Kunkle, sued the military contractor that had fired her in 2012, alleging that the reason was her public support of President Barack Obama. (She eventually settled the case.) In late 2013, public relations rep Justine Sacco was famously let go for tweeting an off-color joke about AIDS while traveling to Africa. In 2014, the chief executive of software company Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out, resigning amid a public backlash against his stance opposing same-sex marriage. This trend even extends to academia, where speech is supposedly sacrosanct: Yale University dean June Chu resigned earlier this year under intense pressure after her offensive Yelp reviews were made known to the Yale community. And Lisa Durden, an adjunct professor at Essex Community College, was given the boot after an incendiary conversation about race with Fox Newss Tucker Carlson.

Most of these people said something that I find, to varying degrees, wrong or unhelpful. Some of it was outright offensive. But none of it deserves firing, because none of it happened in the workplace or had anything to do with work. Rather, each of these people was let go because of statements or gestures they made outside of their working duties. In doing so, they demonstrate the ways that private employers can constitute a grave threat to our free speech rights and expose a conflict between genuine freedom and capitalism.

There is a reason that, rather than letting legal codes alone protect expression, liberal societies have traditionally adopted a robust norm of free speech. The basic processes of democracy require that we all feel free to disagree with one another in the public sphere; without such a norm, its impossible to deliberate as democracy requires. To abandon that norm is to give up the means by which people in democracies make decisions. When that norm has been abandoned, such as in the McCarthy era, we have considered it an injustice, and for good reason. The American Civil Liberties Union, lately a proud public challenger of President Trump and his travel bans, puts the point succinctly: Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Yet thinkers on the left and the right have failed, in many cases, to grapple with this.

Right-wing theorists have always insisted that free-market economics is the best guarantor of individual liberty. Friedrich Hayek, the economist and philosopher who did so much to create modern economic conservatism, insisted that only societies with free markets could ensure free people. We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice, he wrote, arguing against social programs that protect the poor and unlucky, programs that he insisted throughout his long career would lead inevitably toward authoritarianism. The libertarian movement embraces Hayeks view, insisting that personal freedom must include the freedom to act in a market economy unencumbered by government regulation.

In contrast, the left has argued that the fickle turns of the market inevitably erode freedom. Karl Marx and his followers famously said that only through radical egalitarianism in material and social terms could the Enlightenment ideal of personal freedom be fully realized. Todays left-leaning thinkers have echoed this sentiment, pointing to the highly regimented conditions of workers on factory floors and in white-collar offices as proof that capitalist enterprise curtails freedom rather than protects it. The political science professor Corey Robin, in particular, has made a career out of demonstrating that the tyrannies that most consistently afflict ordinary Americans are workplace tyrannies, part of what he calls the private life of power. Progressives who are pleased when businesses discipline workers illiberal speech have lost this essential thread of leftism, arguing that if the government isnt the one enforcing speech codes, then there are no threats to free speech. This is clearly wrong.

Why have so many companies turned into petty dictators when it comes to their employees speech, political and otherwise? Progressives enamored of speech codes might like to imagine that corporations are motivated by genuine concern for social equality, but this gives them far too much credit. The reality is that in the Internet era, when outrage goes viral at incredible speed, companies have a pressing need to get out in front of potential controversies as swiftly as possible. Quick termination often works quite well to stamp out such fires until the publics attention shifts. Meanwhile, though the official unemployment rate has declined for years, flatlined wages and a steadily falling labor force participation rate suggest a weaker job market than the unemployment figures alone would indicate. Under such conditions, employers probably think they have little to lose in cracking down on workers speech, since there are probably eager replacements waiting to fill the spots of those who object.

Most Americans have no legal right that prevents them from being fired for their political beliefs. Public workers enjoy some protection, and some states such as New York and California afford private employees certain leeway to speak politically outside of work, free from reprisals by their employers. But the vast majority of American workers have no such defenses and can be fired for their political expression at the whim of their bosses. As Alina Tugend wrote in a 2015 New York Times essay on these issues, If youre a nonunion private employee, your boss has great latitude to control your political actions.

This condition is not new. What protected employees in the past was, first, a dividing line between work life and private life that has been blurred by digital technology. And second, that aforementioned norm of free speech, a societal expectation that workers were entitled to say what they wanted to say away from the workplace. Now, that norm is being eroded, from both the left and the right.

Tools of surveillance, whether public or private, coercive or voluntary, have never been more powerful or sophisticated, and while the reactions of private employers to employees speech vary, it doesnt take many incidents like those listed above to create a chilling effect. Every engine of online expression is also a tool with which our bosses might investigate our lives and our opinions. They will also therefore be key instruments of employer coercion going forward. As businesses gain new ways of observing the private lives of employees, they will become more adept at policing those off-the-clock moments, and all of us will become less free.

Twitter: @freddiedeboer

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more from the original source:

Corporations are cracking down on free speech inside the office and out - Washington Post

As college students wrap up summer jobs and internships, university administrations are girding for another round of campus battles over issues of free speech, protest, and the universitys role as a setting for education and intellectual exploration. For those a step removed from todays college students (alumni, donors, parents and pundits), these periodic flare-ups have often been taken as dismaying evidence of a generations intolerance toward opposing views and free speech. Students who seek to shut down speech that offends through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.

The desire to defend free speech and broad-mindedness is admirable, but a culture of respect for open discourse and tolerance for disagreeable opinions wont be built through insults, hand-wringing, financial pressure from irate alums or even the legal mandates now being proposed in some state legislatures. Those who are genuinely concerned about defending academic freedom and fostering intellectual diversity on campus would do well to grasp five factors that are fueling the impulse some students and professors have to try to silence speech they consider harmful.

The first factor at work is a striking lack ofunderstanding of the basic premises that underpin free speech. Many student leaders of the recent campus protests evince only a cursory grasp of the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, much less the more complex and harder-to-articulate values of free inquiry and expression in which most American colleges and universities take pride. Whether the blame lies with the demise of university core curricula that typically included liberal philosophers such as John Milton and John Stuart Mill, the retreat from civics education in recent decades, or other factors, principles surrounding free expression, freedom of association and press freedom are poorly understood among millennials.According to a 2015 survey by the Newseum Institute , 33 percent of Americans have no idea what rights the First Amendment protects. Subsequent surveys revealed that 69 percent of students think universities should be able to restrict offensive speech or slurs, and that young people are more likely than their elders to believe that constitutional rights to religious freedom do not apply to faiths that are considered extreme or fringe.

Whats more, some students, particularly nonwhite students, report that their primary experience with such strictures has occurred when free speech has been asserted as a justification or excuse for racist comments. One prominent student leader from the University of Missouri, when told that punishing speech could violate the First Amendment, replied that the First Amendment wasnt written for me. Her meaning was twofold: that when the Bill of Rights was written, each black American was treated as three-fifths of a person, and that her own prime exposure to the precept was its invocation to protect white students and administrators from reprisals for speech she considered offensive. It doesnt help that, often, the only vocal advocates for free speech on campus lean toward the right. Left-leaning students may find that the clubs they belong to, professors they admire, or personalities they follow on social media are not interested in defending the right to voice unpopular views.

A second influence shaping the campus climate for speech is grounded in technological change. The old adage Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me sounds quaint when insults, exposs, and quotes or video clips taken out of context can go viral online, leading swarms of antagonists to harass and intimidate a speaker with whom they disagree. The Internet offers a largely anonymous arena where hateful speech can easily flourish and where smears are available in perpetuity for family members or potential employers to stumble upon. The potency of social media has fueled calls to curtail and even shut down services like the now-defunct anonymous messaging app Yik Yak that seem to fuel cyberbullying. The potential for abusive online speech has made it difficult to argue that speech cannot do real damage and, correspondingly, that protections against harmful speech are unwarranted.

A third cause relates to the current movement for social equality in the United States. Our society has reformed many of the most obvious legal and structural manifestations of racism, sexism and anti-gay bias: keeping blacks from voting, firing women for getting pregnant, criminalizing gay sex and so forth. Now, the imperative to tackle more subtle and insidious forms of discrimination or exclusion including the quietly denigrating terms and unconscious stereotypes that may reveal and entrench implicit bias has rightly grown. Language is unavoidably implicated in this next phase of transformation. In fact, the evolution of language to reflect changing understandings of race, gender and culture is nothing new and does not simply indicate political correctness run amok. The terms Negro, colored and Oriental are all reminders that changing mores routinely render certain words out of bounds. As unfamiliar as some may find gender-neutral pronouns or neologisms such as Latinx, the insistence on them fits into this tradition, and the justifications behind them deserve a respectful hearing.

A fourth factor relates to our polarized and contentious political environment. The tone of political discourse had been degenerating well before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, but his campaign and election achieved through his distinctively impudent style have helped to normalize public speech that is intemperate, personally insulting, and derogatory toward women, the disabled, Muslims, African Americans, Jews and many other vulnerable groups.

The United States has the most protective standard for hate speech in the world, yet unwritten codes of civility and pluralism have, at least for the past few decades, largely confinedovertly bigoted sentiments to the margins of society.With these views now voiced among some of Trumps supporters and with the president himself repudiating them reluctantly, if at all, members of targeted minority groups understandably feel under siege, lacking confidence that their government will protect them.Students, meanwhile, see their campuses as places of refuge: a home where they can learn and socialize in security and relative comfort. If students witness a permissive environment for hateful speech in American society writ large, they will be more insistent in their demand for safeguards that prevent such attitudes from invading their schools.

The final development is that not all free speech standard-bearers come in peace.Conservative commentators including Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter and Richard Spencer style themselves as defenders of free speech for the purpose of building their brands and galvanizing followers, subscribers and book-buyers, but they manufacture confrontations to provoke controversy and draw headlines, rather than to elucidate ideas. This doesnt mean they should be barred from campuses or silenced; they still have their rights. But those who rally in defense of their freedom to speak, and those who invite them to speak, should engage not only the question of their rights but also the substance of their message. Free speech cannot be turned into a partisan cause of the right: At its core, free expression is a progressive concept and a liberal value.We value the right of all to speak because we want equal rights for all.

A robust defense of free speech on campus should be an enlightened defense, one that is alert to the concerns and arguments roiling universities now. A first step for those who rightly fear for the future of free speech should be dialogue with students historically the most impassioned defenders of campus free speech. To mobilize a new generation in that tradition will require listening to and understanding how it sees questions of race, gender and what it takes for a school to be a suitable setting for learning.Such conversations and engagement efforts are not an alternative to a staunch intellectual, political and legal defense of free speech principles. They are a necessary enabler of it.

Twitter: @PENamerican

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Original post:

How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech. - Washington Post

Sen. Joe DonnellyJoe DonnellyGOP rep jumps into Indiana Senate race OPINION | Wendy Davis: Collins and Murkowski inspire the next generation of women in politics Anti-abortion Democrats fading from the scene MORE (D-Ind.)recently introducedthe Restoring Integrity to Americas Elections Act. Despite the innocuous name, this is yet another attempt to weaponize government against free speech, free association and political dissent.

The legislation wouldoverhaulthe Federal Election Commission (FEC) by lowering the number of FEC commissioners from six to five, supposedly putting an end to gridlock. The bill would also reduce partisanship by limiting commissioners to serving one term and granting the president power to nominate an FEC chair to serve for 10 years. This chair would have the authority to act independently of other commissioners, centralizing power in a single unelected political appointee.

Donnellys legislation will openly weaponize the FEC, as it allows one side of the aisle to impose its will when there is legitimate disagreement over complex legal matters. The House version of the bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) already hasmore than 10 bipartisan co-sponsors. Perhaps Renaccisnow-floundering campaignfor Ohio governor drove him to support such an un-conservative idea to pander to liberal voters.

For decades, the independent, six-member FEC has remained bipartisan by design, precisely because it has the power to restrict speech about politicsthe very heart of our freedoms of speech and association.

Under the proposed Donnelly-Renacci legislation, Democrats and Republicans would receive two commissioners each, allowing the president to pick the tiebreaker for the next decade. Consolidating partisan control for 10 years at a time does not sound like an improvement.

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a proponent of all-powerful FEC Chair, exemplifies why it cannot work: These roles are innately partisan. Weintraub ignores Democrat malfeasance while actively lobbying her agency colleagues to probe the reported attempts of Russia to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In asensationalist June memo, Weintraub claimed Russias alleged activities in our 2016 presidential election may represent an unprecedented threat to the very foundations of our American political community. Yet she disregards such concerns when a Democrat is involved.

The same commissioner has sought toregulate the internet,fine Fox News Channelfor includingmorecandidates in a 2015 Republican primary debate, and routinelyassails her fellow commissioners.

Weintraub complains about partisan dysfunction at the FEC,lamentingdivisions on ideological grounds. But she fails to understand her perceived dysfunctionher colleagues not agreeing with heris the natural outcome of a checks-and-balances system. There are reasonable differences in interpretation of complex election law and its application to particular facts. Dysfunction proves the FEC is not controlled by a single side of the aisle. Giving Weintraubor a Republican equivalentthe power to persecute speakers and criminalize speech is just plain crazy.

Recent attempts to reform the FEC only prolong Americas unfortunately long history of misplaced anti-speech activism. Surreptitiously-named liberal groups like the Center for Public Integrityroutinely lamentmoney in politics. They fearmonger with threatening terminology, from unlimited cash donors to shell game and aggressive trafficking. Left-wing activists like these revert to visceral depictions of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers as an us vs. them ploynot unlike the failed Occupy Wall Street movement.

Any attack on free speech is ultimately an attack on every Americans constitutional right to free expression, no matter how much money is involved. Big money in politics only exposes us to more ideas, while we, the citizens, retain the right to vote in secret at the ballot box. The dissemination of more ideas translates to more information, leaving us with more power to make informed choices about candidates or political issuesour own decision.

Only those who believe Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions think a few more TV ads is a bad idea. The American people should reject the Donnelly-Renacci mistake.

DanBackeris founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Visit link:

FEC 'reform' a smokescreen to weaponize government against free speech - The Hill (blog)

Share

Share

Email

Print

In its annual report on the state of free speech on U.S. college campuses, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) raised the University of Toledos free speech grade from red to yellow.

There are three possible grades: Red means speech is mostly stopped on campus. Green means speech is free. Yellow is in between.

Click here to read more Blade editorials

As FIRE puts it: Yellow light colleges and universities are those institutions with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.

Relative to what is happening at many universities in the country, several of them once great, the rating for UT is a relief. UT does not actively quash free speech!

But that is is hardly a point of pride.

In 2014, UT, as an institution, was not sure that students had the right to peacefully protest a speech by Karl Rove.

A university in this nation ought to be a bastion of free speech. At the very least, universities ought to meet the nations legal standards for the protection of speech and expression. Many of our universities get a failing grade in this regard. UT has improved to a C-minus.

The university violated speech laws most recently in March of this year, when it took down signs and flyers promoting a white separatist group called Identity Evropa. Odious though the group may be, its posters impinged upon the actual rights of no one.

The posters didnt even threaten the dubious rights the University of Toledo has dreamed up for its students: To be free from fear or intimidation and physical and/or emotional harm.

Should the right to be free of the fear of physical harm be put on the same plane as the right to be free from fear of emotional harm? What human being in the wider world is able to exercise the latter right?

The posters merely read, Protect Your Heritage, with the groups name in the subtitle, and Michelangelos David in the background. While the ideology behind the message is one all Americans should reject, the words themselves do not constitute a physical threat, or hate speech.

If the right to free expression exists only inside the boundaries of others sense of comfort and safety, then it does not really exist at all.

College is a place where young people encounter, and hopefully transition to, the world as it exists beyond the safe confines of home and hearth. White supremacists are unfortunately a part of that world. The real emotional harm here is being done by college administrators who, in seeking to shield the students eyes and minds from scary ideas and the people who hold them, stunt their emotional growth and leave them unequipped to face the complexities of life.

Students who felt emotionally harmed by the Identity Evropa posters need to toughen up and get a life. The university should be in the business of helping them to do that.

Here is the original post:

UT still has work to do on free speech - Toledo Blade

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate people's free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the U.S. as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union this week sued Maine Gov. Paul LePage and sent warning letters to Utah's congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump.

Trump's frequent and often unorthodox use of Twitter and allegations he blocks people with dissenting views has raised questions about what elected officials can and cannot do on their official social media pages.

Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings.

"People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and they're hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback," said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. "That includes people who disagree with public officials."

Most of the officials targeted so far all Republicans say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan called the Aug. 1 lawsuit against him "frivolous" and said his office has a clear policy and will "remove all hateful and violent content" and "coordinated spam attacks."

The ACLU accused Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin of blocking more than 600 people on Facebook and Twitter. His office said he blocks people who post "obscene and abusive language or images, or repeated off-topic comments and spam."

Spokesmen for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Mia Love, who were singled out by the ACLU, said people are rarely blocked and only after they have violated rules posted on their Facebook pages to prevent profanity, vulgarity, personal insults or obscene comments.

"We are under no obligation to allow Senator Hatch's Facebook page to be used as a platform for offensive content or misinformation," spokesman Matt Whitlock said.

Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sued Trump last month, said there's no coordinated national effort to target Republicans. The goal is to establish that all elected officials no matter the party must stop blocking people on social media.

"If it's mainly used to speak to and hear from constituents, that's a public forum and you can't pick and choose who you hear from," Fallow said.

Rob Anderson, chairman of Utah's Republican Party, scoffed at the notion that politicians are violating free-speech rights by weeding out people who post abusive content.

"You own your Facebook page and if you want to block somebody or hide somebody, that's up to you," Anderson said. "Why else is there a tab that says hide or block?"

Court decisions about how elected officials can and cannot use their accounts are still lacking in this new legal battleground, but rules for public forums side with free-speech advocates, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School.

For instance, lower court rulings say the government can't deny credentials to journalists because their reporting is critical, he said.

"These are government officials communicating about government business. They can't pick or choose based on who they like or who likes them," Chemerinsky said.

But public officials may be able to legally defend the way they police their social media pages if they prove their decisions are applied evenly.

"It's got to content-neutral," Chemerinsky said.

Trump's use of social media and the Supreme Court's decision in June striking down a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from social media is driving the increased attention to the issue, said Amanda Shanor, a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

"More and more of our political discussion is happening online," Shanor said. "It's more important that we know what these rules are."

Go here to read the rest:

Free-speech debate swirls as officials block on social media - ABC News

"As a general rule, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the private workplace," said Daniel Schwartz, employment law partner at Shipman & Goodwin. Instead, the First Amendment prevents government, but not companies or individuals, from limiting free speech.

You can say whatever you want in a private workplace, Schwartz said, but you should "assume your employer might have something to say about it."

But some forms of employee speech are protected by the nation's labor laws.

"Employees have the right to talk about their wages, hours and working conditions," said Heather Bussing, a California labor attorney.

The difference will likely be at the center of the controversy swirling around a diversity memo written by a now ex-Google employee.

Software engineer James Damore posted a 3,300-word criticism of Google's diversity policies on the company's internal website. In it, he said he valued diversity and inclusion, but argued that the biological differences between men and women "may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

Related: Google's open culture tested by engineer's anti-diversity memo

Damore confirmed to some other news outlets on Monday that he had been fired as a result of the memo.

Google (GOOG) has yet to confirm his firing, although a source confirms he is no longer an employee. But CEO Sundar Pichai said in a response sent to Google employees, that while "we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves ... to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."

Pichai said that sections of the memo violate the company's Code of Conduct, which requires "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."

Related: Silicon Valley spars over Googler's essay

Bussing said that parts of the memo, like his criticism of the company's diversity program, could be considered a discussion about working conditions that is protected by law. But other parts could be considered offensive by Damore's co-workers, and Google had a right to take action.

"Google says it has a line, and that this [memo] crossed it," she said.

Damore told the New York Times that "I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does."

The memo could also be a different form of protected employee speech that labor law calls "concerted activities." Typically that's speech by employees who are seeking to form a union. But any kind of "call to action" directed at other employees could also fall into this category, said Eric Meyer, a labor law partner Dilworth Paxson who runs the blog The Employer Handbook.

"It's possible he may have a claim," said Meyer.

But a company can fire an employee for violating policy even if his or her speech is protected, Meyer said.

Employers can have a policy to create whatever culture they want inside the business, and to get rid of employees who do not fit in that environment, as long as that policy does not discriminate against a class of people based on characteristics such as gender, age or race, according experts.

"Companies have a right to manage their workplaces as they want," said Schwartz. "they can prefer one point of view over another If they want."

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 8, 2017: 4:43 PM ET

Read the original:

Free speech on the job, and what that means - CNNMoney

Imagine for a moment that you are the boss of Google. Youre on vacation when you get a call that the place is going up on flames over an internal memo that one of your white, male engineers has written condemning the companys approach to diversity. Some women are threatening to quit unless the memos author is fired. What would you do?

If you find that question easy to answer, I humbly suggest you havent thought hard enough. Its understandable that many Americans leap to one position or another. We live in a moment when tweets pass for discourse, and breaking news continually short-circuits deep thought. But the firing of software engineer James Damore for writing, among other things, On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Women on average are more prone to anxiety deserves more than reflexive outrage. After all, were talking about the clash of two pillars of our society -- free speech and the presumptive equality of all persons. When pillars clash, we should all worry about the roof caving in.

Googles CEO, Sundar Pichai, fired Damore for his memos harmful gender stereotypes. Ill share my views on this below, but first, put on your miners helmet. We need to delve beneath the surface of these social fault lines to understand the subterranean geography of our society.

The First Amendment establishes our free speech rights. Damore claims he was wrongly fired because he had a right to bring up working conditions with his colleagues. Courts may decide the merits of that claim, but for now its important to recognize that free speech rights have never been absolute. You cannot hide behind the First Amendment to harass someone, to disrupt religious services, or to incite a lynching. The government may be constrained from censoring our speech, but employers can impose all kinds of limitations and penalties, especially within the workplace.

Thats the easy part. The fault line runs under a fogbound trench called hate speech. Theres no doubting that hate speech exists, but like art its hard to define. Is God hates fags, hate speech or a theological position? To me, its clearly both, but that does nothing to resolve the dilemma over how society should respond. Courts have largely relied on time, place, and manner restrictions to define the limits of free speech, but on the campuses of universities and now of tech companies, the controversy burns.

The Westboro Baptists crude sloganeering is loathsome yet rightfully protected within time, place, and manner bounds. At a certain distance, they can picket a funeral, disgusting as that practice may be, provided they do not disrupt it. But if that is indeed protected speech, why should James Damore lose his job? After all, he expressed no hatred in his memo. On the contrary, he explicitly states, I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.

The answer, I think, lies in time, place and manner. This is a time when tech giants are under fire for perceived gender and racial bias. Damore chose to express his views within his company, which means that Google had every right to weigh the consequences of his speech, hateful or not, against the value of his continued employment. Finally and most crucially, the manner of Damores expression was clearly provocative. His patchy empiricism and disclaimers notwithstanding, from the title down the essay is no invitation to dialogue; it is a poke in the eye. Oh, did I mention? Its called Googles Ideological Echo Chamber.

But theres more. In citing stereotypes, CEO Pichai said, Our co-workers shouldnt have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states.

Thats admirable. Unfortunately, it embodies a categorical error about stereotypes. As Steven Pinker has pointed out, many (though certainly not all) stereotypes center on some true generalities. It is a true generality, for example, that men are taller than women. This has no bearing on whether any particular man is taller or shorter than any particular woman.

Whether we voice them or not, we all generate stereotypes. This is no surprise, since stereotyping about people grows out of the key human instincts for categorizing and abstracting. Thats not an excuse for prejudice. Its what you do with your stereotypes that counts.

We all carry around a stereotype about what constitutes a chair, for example. Its useful in preventing us from sitting on a spike rather than a cushion. Most of us would say a chair has four legs, a seat, and a back. Within that stereotype we can easily fit a wooden chair and a lazy boy recliner. But if confronted with a rubber ball as chair, we may have to recontour the stereotype.

So too with people. The categorical error is to claim that stereotyping itself is a harm. Its not. Rather, the harm lies in filling a stereotype with false, demeaning, and/or spiteful content and then applying the model presumptively and indiscriminately to all instances of that category. The sin is not stereotyping itself, but failing to consciously push back against our presumptions to take each person on their own terms.

Let me turn this on myself. Roughly speaking, Im an Arab-American. Doubtless, this floods your mind with notions about me. Burnoose, anyone? When I went off to college, many years ago, I learned that my roommate would be David Rosenbaum. People who knew him told me, Hes like Mr. Young Zionist! You guys are going to kill each other! The same people told Dave that he was being roomed with a terrorist. When we met, I seem to recall, both our knees were knocking. But we soon became really good friends, as did our families, and the friendship has lasted a lifetime.

The point is not just that we were both exceptions to whatever stereotypes people had of us; its that people are vastly more complex than any stereotype of any of them. We are not chairs. Yet its worth remembering that, depending on the circumstances, even a chair may become a flotation device or firewood.

Still we not done. Throughout history, societies have organized around sacred myths. These clearly had some utility in the past, but they easily turn toxic in advanced mass societies. For one thing, a liberal democracy cannot function if its citizens prefer truthiness over truth.

Among the points Damore tried to make, in his self-sabotaging way, was this: we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that dont fit a certain ideology. That is certainly true of the nation, of New England Patriots fans and foes, and likely of Google as well. Social cohesion tugs us in that direction. But if we truly aspire to be a more just society, we have to tear down at least some of our sacred myths.

None is holier than the myth of equality. Clearly, legal equality is a social good to be cherished. Clearly, we are not individually equal in traits, skills, or character. I am not as good at physics as Lisa Randall, at investing as Warren Buffett, or at singing as Bobby McFerrin. I am better at ethics than Donald Trump. But what of groups? Are all groups equal? In what sense? And if so, should we expect, in a just society, to see a random distribution of people from those groups in all occupations?

Those are worthy questions. They should not be taboo because of our sacred myth. The underlying fear seems to be that asking such questions will validate noxious claims such as women are not ambitious or women are more neurotic than men. Those are horrible, hurtful claims, but more important they can never be validated at the level that counts: a person.

Even an essay as long as this doesnt give room to fully explore this fraught subject. To be clear, though, Im not attempting to smuggle in a white, male supremacist ideology. My life history is a testament against that. However, I am stating, unequivocally, that it is wrong to put the scientific investigation of human nature, including average male-female differences, out of bounds, and it may be wrong to expect that a just society would result in an even distribution of men and women in all occupations.

Theres no cause for alarm in this. At the moment, it appears that even in a flawed society women may make up a majority of lawyers. Since men still have a higher admission rate to law school, this is evidently not the result of social policy or legal tactics, but of female choice and ability.

So, would I conclude that Pichai was wrong to fire Damore? No. In his place, I might have suspended Damore and worked with him and others to create a plan for his rehabilitation, but hey, thats why I run a small nonprofit, not a tech giant.

Damore took an aggressive, condescending approach in his memo, one that he should have known would ignite angry rebukes rather than thoughtful dialogue. Worse, in my view, he mixed sprinklings of science with unfounded and hurtful generalities. Do women exhibit more neuroticism, as Damore states? His anchor that claim is a link to a Wikipedia article on the general topic of neurosis.

Its a shame, in every sense. It sets back the hope of reconciling differing views on the common ground of science, of harmonizing principles in the optimum of justice, and of healing grievances through mutual respect and authentic conversation.

Yet, pursue that hope we must. We cannot be innocent of history. We cannot ignore present-day bias. Above all we cannot hide from the truth. The most important truth in this painful situation may be this: Everyone deserves to be fairly considered on their own merits.

Any views expressed in the essay above are those of the author alone.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the rest here:

The Google Glitch: Free Speech, Stereotypes, and Sacred Myths - HuffPost

From work memorandums to wedding cakes, our values and consistency are tested in some strange places.

Not too long ago, most people agreed on certain values when it came to free speech: I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it. To be sure, that value created costs, but it seemed worthwhile to most. That consensus is now gone, at least in the corporate context. How this change affects culture more generally remains to be seen, but we may get an answer sooner than many expect.

So in terms of the First Amendment, Google can set and promote whatever values it wants. It can criticize harmful gender stereotypes or wax eloquent about affirming the right of Googlers to express themselves or boldly proclaim that free society depends on free expression. Whether this is consistent, correct, coherent, or commendable doesnt matter as a purely legal matter. No one can force Google to change its mind or its message. As Apples CEO Tim Cook noted, a company is not some faceless, shapeless thing that exists apart from society. A company like ours has a culture, it has values, and it has a voice. The First Amendment agrees.

The same holds for artistic businesses. Among those, there is a strong push for businesses to promote certain values and to avoid certain values.

For example, everyone seems fine with cake designers not being compelled to design pro-Trump cakes. Indeed, the mom of a 9-year-old Trump supporter could not find a single cake designer to create a Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Caitlyn Jenner apologizes for wearing Make America Great Again hat Conway, ABC host tangle over Trump's involvement in son's statement MORE cake, and no one cried foul. Or consider Sophie Theallets independent fashion brand that refused to create dresses for Melania Trump. That seemed fine, too. After all, as Theallet noted, we value our artistic freedom and shouldnt have to participate in dressing or associating in any way with projects we dont want to support.

But when a Colorado cake designer named Jack Phillips decided that he and his cake shop could not create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage in 2012, the hammer came down hard culturally and legally. The state sued him for violating its anti-discrimination law and wants to compel him to design that cake.

#BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear same-sex wedding cake case https://t.co/YTQgtn6ci4 pic.twitter.com/KxsaRznV1V

For Phillips, the issue is one of corporate values and culture. While Phillips is happy to serve and does serve people of all sexual orientations, he cannot promote messages and values with which he disagrees, just like those other designers and businesses insist they cant do. In other words, Phillips doesnt discriminate based on status; he makes distinctions based on content. He sells brownies to all. He just doesnt celebrate every message requested of him, no matter who requests it.

That principle has now led Phillips to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear his case this upcoming term. And this moment will offer great insight into the current state of our free speech culture, both corporately and generally. Businesses and elite institutions often file briefs supporting one side or the other at the Supreme Court. Which side will these corporations support in Phillips case?

One would think, based on their free speech rhetoric and prior positions, that companies like Google would support Phillips. After all, in 2007, Google and Microsoft defended their First Amendment right to not show paid advertisements for websites criticizing North Carolina politician Roy Cooper in their search results. And in 2016, Apple defended its First Amendment right to not create computer code helping the federal government unlock a criminals iPhone. Businesses should stay true to their core values, or at least thats what we would assume. And the government surely should not compel these businesses to betray those values.

"The Google diversity memo should start the conversation not end it" https://t.co/fZokKygXhG pic.twitter.com/xgLlCDIDsI

Companies have even gone so far as to argue that their First Amendment rights trump anti-discrimination laws. Right now, Comcast is defending against an anti-discrimination lawsuit by asserting its First Amendment right to reject programs that African Americanowned media companies created. And in 2012, ABC defended its First Amendment right to exclude African Americans from The Bachelorette when it was sued for violating an anti-discrimination law. As ABC argued in that suit, Even laws which advance important and worthwhile social policy objectives, like anti-discrimination laws, may not, consistent with the First Amendment, be used to regulate the content of protected speech.

Since these companies so staunchly defend their own right to promote values of their choosing and have taken more extreme positions than Phillips, supporting this cake designer in his First Amendment quest should be easy. I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it, right?

In this respect, that anti-Trump fashion designer provided the best reason for businesses to support their own expressive freedom and for them to support Phillips, too: Integrity is our only true currency. Lets just see if she, Google, other corporations get the memo.

Jonathan Scruggs is senior counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Here is the original post:

Google memos and pro-Trump cakes: When free speech values collide - The Hill (blog)

Ive long much liked the free-speech coverage of Techdirt and Mike Masnick, and I was delighted to hear that they have received more than $250,000 to cover free-speech issues. Heres Masnicks post on the subject:

For nearly two decades, Techdirt has reported extensively on issues related to free speech on the internet. Much of this coverage has been about laws that help to protect free speech, such as anti-SLAPP laws, intermediary liability protections, and fair use, among others. Over time, weve seen countless attempts to silence speech and undermine important protections for free speech, even as new technologies and services have risen up to provide more arenas for free speech to thrive. These attacks on free speech including lawsuits, threats, bullying, and legislative proposals raise serious concerns about protecting free speech online.

In January of this year, the company behind Techdirt, and two of its employees, were sued for $15 million in a lawsuit that seems specifically designed to either shut down the company or to silence reporting on matters of public interest.

The lawsuit, along with our reporting on many similar stories, motivated the Techdirt team to double down on our coverage of issues related to free speech on the internet, and the ways that it is being attacked. Going through the process ourselves has given us an even deeper appreciation for the First Amendment and the legal protections provided in states with strong anti-SLAPP laws. Similarly, we are more aware than ever before of the myriad ways in which free speech is under attack not just directly, but indirectly as well, such as via threats against third parties and platforms to stifle speech.

It has also given us greater recognition that many people even journalists, lawyers and politicians may not fully understand these issues, what legal protections there are, where those protections are under attack, and where they could be strengthened. Many are also not aware of the massive cost attacks on free speech have, and just how many people they are impacting.

This has inspired us to work with the Freedom of the Press Foundation to put this project together, which will enable us to focus even more reporting resources on covering threats to free speech in the US and around the globe, and to tell the stories of the chilling effects created when free speech is attacked. We are thankful that a number of prominent organizations and foundations have also stepped up to sponsor this effort, including Automattic, the Charles Koch Foundation, Craig Newmarks CraigConnects and Union Square Ventures. [Techdirt maintains full editorial control over all content.] Between all supporting organizations, more than $250,000 has been committed so far to further reporting on free speech. We hope youll look forward to much more reporting on issues related to free speech online.

View post:

Techdirt gets more than $250000 to better cover free-speech issues - Washington Post

After a memo proclaiming women are underrepresented in tech because of biological differences between the sexes and not because of discrimination went viral , a Google employee is now out of a job in what's become one of the most public firings of the year. As with anything provocative (and tech-related), social media is aflame with differing opinions on whether or not circulating a memo disparaging the core values of your company is a fireable offense.

So is it?

Those who don't support firing the engineer who wrote the memo say that dissenting opinions are good for businesses, and that no one should be fired for exercising their right to free speech. Unfortunately, you don't actually have any free speech rights in the workplace. The First Amendment limits the government's ability to suppress free speech, not an employer's. If you're an at-will employee, which most Americans are (unless you're in a union), your boss can fire you for pretty much any reason. (The only people exempted from this are those employed by the government .) The Constitution does not guarantee you employment.

As Bloomberg Businessweek notes, federal statutes "limit companies rights to fire or hire workers and prevent them from joining unions ... based only on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, and a few other protected categories." Beyond that, though, employees can be fired for pretty much any reason. (A few states have limited protections for political speech, per the American Bar Association .)

In a letter to employees , Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the engineer was fired not for simply expressing unpopular opinions, but for perpetuating "harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace" and violating the company's Code of Conduct, adding,

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldnt have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being agreeable rather than assertive, showing a lower stress tolerance, or being neurotic.

Creating a hostile work environment, as people are suggesting Damore did, is certainly grounds for termination. It also comes at a time when Silicon Valley is facing repeated criticism for gender discrimination (Uber anyone? ) and for Google, this has become a PR and HR nightmare. His actions likely caused lost productivity company-wide, and as Pichai noted, are having tremendously negative impacts on his co-workers, including reportedly causing some to consider leaving the company.

The big issue with this case is that the memo was not circulated among a small group of people or posted privately. No one exposed the man's beliefs against his will. He purposefully sent them out to the entire company, on a work platform, and directly questioned the judgement of his managers and the leaders of the company, in addition to informing his female coworkers that he viewed them as biologically incapable of doing their job well. Whether or not companies and bosses should fire employees because of these types of actions and politically incorrect rhetoric is a different question entirely . The laws are clear, and it's not just Google where that type of behavior wouldn't be tolerated.

Go here to read the rest:

Why 'Free Speech' Couldn't Save That Google Engineer's Job - Money Magazine

The Googleplex in Menlo Park, California, on Nov. 4.

Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

James Damore, the Google employee fired for circulating an internal memo decrying the companys gender diversity efforts, is well on his way to becoming a right-wing martyr. Julian Assange has offered him a job with WikiLeaks. The right-wing social media platform Gab has offered him a job as well. As of this writing, WeSearchr, the alt-right crowdfunding tool, has raised more than $8,000 for him. A National Review piece equates the hapless engineer with Martin Luther, saying hes nailed 95 theses to the door of the Church of PC. Some people are tweeting the hashtag #JeSuisJamesDamore.

Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose.

I groaned when I read that Damore had lost his job, as much as he probably deserved it, because this reaction was inevitable. There are few things the right loves more than basking in its own sense of victimization, especially when it can claim the mantle of free speech while doing so. Indeed, one of Steve Bannons great political innovations lay in realizing that the rage of atomized men who live online could be harnessed for political ends. As Bannons biographer, Joshua Green, writes in his best-selling Devils Bargain: He envisioned a great fusion between the masses of alienated gamers, so powerful in the online world, and the right-wing outsiders drawn to Breitbart by its radical politics and fuck-you attitude. Damores firing is the sort of thing that cements this squalid alliance. Its a gift to the troll armies.

Thats true even though Damores firing doesnt mean what the right says it does. As conservatives see it, Damore lost his job for a thought crime. He opposed Googles politically correct monoculture and articulated, in a nonconfrontational way, what a lot of people probably believe: that at least some occupational gender differences are biologically based. Im simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we dont see equal representation of women in tech and leadership, Damore wrote, adding, Many of these differences are small and theres significant overlap between men and women, so you cant say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

That sounds, if not right, then at least not unreasonable. One could describe the tone of this memo as cooperative, writes Michael Brendan Dougherty in the National Review. The author doesnt make any claims that he is victimized. He doesnt accuse anyone in particular of being unqualified. But the response it received wasnt argument, it was anathematization. This isnt quite true; Damore laments that the shaming of conservative views creates a psychologically unsafe environment, an ironic complaint from a critic of political correctness. But Dougherty is correct that Damore repeatedly nods to the value of diversity. He presents himself as an open-minded sort who is just trying to be helpful, though he seems to think that rational conversation begins with everyone accepting his premises. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems, Damore writes.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the weeks biggest political news.

He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat.

To his supporters, it appears as if Damore was fired for refusing to take the position that all gender differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination. Silicon Valley has a very peculiar definition of diversity that requires proportional representation from every gender and race, all of whom must think exactly alike, writes Elaine Ou in Bloomberg View. But this is a red herring. Damore wasnt fired for harboring stereotyped views about women. He was fired for putting those views into a memo and disseminating it throughout the company in a way that calls his colleagues competence into question. Damore describes women as having more [o]penness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Noting that women suffer, on average, more neuroticism than men, he suggests, This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Damore has every right to believe this. He should have a right to express these beliefs outside work; there are countless online communities where men are welcome to discuss womens inherent shortcomings at length. Whether Damore has a right to express his views about women internally, and then expect women to be willing to work with him, is another question.

This incident put Google in a difficult position. Fire Damore, and it seems to affirm his complaints about the companys intolerance for conservative ideas. Keep him, and deal with the internal effects on morale, cohesion, and recruitment. As Yonatan Zunger, who until recently had a senior role at Google, wrote in an open letter to Damore, Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldnt assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them.

Getting rid of Damore thus might have been the right thing for Google. But the fact that he will now be a reactionary culture hero is bad for the rest of us. He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat. These men draw power from being censored. We flatter them when we treat them as dangers rather than fools.

Visit link:

Of Course James Damore Is Now a Free Speech Martyr - Slate Magazine

When I talk about free speech, I often ask the audience two questions. First, did you know that the Supreme Court has been steadily expanding free-speech rights? Second, do you feel freer to speak now than you did five years ago? The answers are always the same some variation of no and heck, no.

The first assertion is undoubtedly true. Federal courts have consistently protected free speech from government interference and have been relentless in shutting down viewpoint discrimination. When government officials target speech because of a speakers views, they lose time and again.

At the same time, millions of Americans are extraordinarily reluctant to express even the most mainstream of (particularly) social conservative views. Theyre convinced that if they do that, theyll be publicly humiliated, investigated, and perhaps even lose their jobs. Theyre convinced that outspoken liberals enjoy greater opportunity in key sectors of the economy, and if conservatives want to thrive, they best keep their opinions to themselves.

Two recent incidents highlight this concern. The first comes courtesy of actress Lena Dunham, the paradigm of the celebrity social-justice warrior. Early last Thursday morning, she tweeted at American Airlines that shed heard two of its employees engaged in transphobic talk. Specifically, she said she heard two flight attendants talk about how they thought transgenderism was gross, and theyd never accept a trans kid. She did not see them harassing anyone. She was simply eavesdropping on a conversation.

How did American Airlines respond? By launching an investigation into the offending employees (they couldnt substantiate Dunhams claims). Is that now the standard? Will American Airlines investigate employees without any allegation that theyve actually mistreated a single customer merely on the grounds that their employees private conversation offended a leftist?

The second incident comes courtesy of Google, one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. An anonymous employee penned a multi-page memo addressing why there are fewer women than men in key fields in the tech industry. In the memo, he noted that Google values gender and racial diversity but has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. This means that Google responds to gender imbalances with extreme and authoritarian measures. At the extreme, it views all gender disparities as due to oppression. Its authoritarian response is to discriminate to correct this oppression.

The writer than explores at length cultural and biological differences between men and women and then proposes some measures to increase female representation in the field without resorting to discrimination.

And how did his colleagues respond? How did Google respond? Employees demanded that he be fired. Google then penned a response that contained this ominous paragraph:

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

That was a thinly veiled warning. Speak your mind, but know that HR is looking over your shoulder. And late Monday, Google lowered the boom. It fired software engineer James Damore for perpetuating gender stereotypes. He wrote a memo describing how Google was intolerant of dissenting voices. Google proved his point.

Its important to note that Google and American Airlines are both private corporations. They have enormous latitude to advance their own corporate viewpoints and to regulate the speech of their employees. There is no First Amendment violation here. Theres nothing illegal about fellow employees or corporate employers attempting to squelch the speech of employees who quite literally dissent from the company line.

But just because something is legal does not mean its right, and the result is a crisis in the culture of free speech in the United States. As the politicization of everything proceeds apace, the company line has increasingly moved well beyond promoting its own products to promoting a particular kind of politics. Major corporations and virtually every university in the nation are now political entities just as much as theyre commercial entities, and they wear their progressivism on their sleeves.

The primary victims of this new culture of groupthink are social conservatives and other dissenters from identity politics. In field after field and company after company, conservatives understand that the price of their employment is silence. Double standards abound, and companies intentionally try to keep work environments safe from disagreement. Radical sexual and racial politics are given free rein. Disagree and lose your job.

It takes a person of rare constitution and moral courage to speak up. And thats precisely how the far Left likes it. After all, what value is there in disagreement? Theyve figured out that elusive path to racial, gender, and sexual justice, and disagreement only distracts. It does worse than distract. It wounds.

But take heart, conservatives. Its not all bleak. After all, the government is highly unlikely to persecute you for your speech. And if you want to succeed in cutting-edge businesses or enjoy equal opportunityin the academy, you do have one good option. You can shut your mouth.

READ MORE: The Anti-Diversity Screed That Wasnt Google Receives 95 Theses of Diversity and Inclusion Justifying Exclusion through Diversity

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more from the original source:

Lena Dunham & Google Demonstrate Eroding Free Speech Culture ... - National Review

The following editorial appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, recently led a hearing on Capitol Hill about free speech on American campuses. Freedom of speech and thought are at risk in colleges and universities. But congressional intervention is a nonstarter. At the hearing, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said that in speaking on college campuses, he's "encountered anti-free-speech measures, administrative cowardice, even physical violence."

In just the past year, Americans have seen a scholar greeted with a riot at a prominent liberal-arts college and a professor warned to leave campus to keep himself safe. The disinvitation of controversial speakers is now commonplace, as is the restriction of free speech to designated areas on campuses. And in a 2016 survey, a majority of college students agreed that the culture on their campus stopped some people from speaking their minds, lest they offend others.

This is wrong, and for the university, tragic. Colleges that become hostile environments for unpopular ideas or ideas that contradict a certain ideology are betraying themselves and their students.

It's good to see that the problem of free speech on campus is getting attention. But federal intervention is decidedly not the answer, as the First Amendment to the Constitution makes clear.

A federal campus-speech law might, in the end, have a chilling effect on speech. Suppose, for example, that the law required colleges to punish students who shout down speakers.

The university must police itself. Free speech, and the open market of ideas, is all the regulation a free society requires, or should tolerate.

Read more here:

Do not legislate campus free speech - Albany Times Union

The American Civil Liberties Union considers the proposed Israeli Anti-Boycott Act, which is working its way through Congress, a serious threat to free speech. We agree.

The act targets an international effort to boycott businesses in Israel and occupied Palestinian territories to pressure Israel to comply with international law and to stop the further construction of settlements on occupied Palestinian lands.

The bill would threaten large fines and prison time for businesses and individuals who dont buy from Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and who make statements, including social media posts, saying that they are doing so in order to boycott.

The bill would make it a felony to support the international boycott. Those found in violation would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison, according to the ACLUs analysis.

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, began after Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005 called for a boycott to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Among the movements goals: ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights; equality under Israeli law for Arab citizens; and stopping the expansion of almost exclusively Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied territories, which the United Nations says is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Detractors say that BDS unfairly targets Israel, with the Anti-Defamation League going so far as to say it is the most prominent effort to undermine Israels existence. Supporters, however, say its a nonviolent movement inspired in part by similar actions taken against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s.

In Massachusetts, U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, is one of 237 members of the House to co-sponsor the bill.

Neal explained his sponsorship recently by saying, I am opposed to international efforts that attempt to isolate, boycott and delegitimize the State of Israel. If peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, it will only come about through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians I take the views of the ACLU seriously, but remain deeply concerned about a movement that demonizes our close ally and rejects a two-state solution.

While we support Israels right to exist and our countrys historic alliance with Israel against its enemies, we should not let that trump the right of our citizens to express their political views through boycott without fear of retribution from a government that disagrees with their political stance. Today Israel, tomorrow what?

The ACLU is right to dig in on this. Its the edge of the proverbial slippery slope.

If members of Congress want to lend their support to Israel, then let them lend their voices, but not try to stifle the voices of their fellow citizens.

Other countries including France and Britain have enacted similar anti-boycott measures, but that doesnt make it right or mean we should follow suit. For more than 200 years America has seen itself as the champion of personal freedom and democracy, and we shouldnt now abandon that leadership role in the world.

As the ACLU has argued, individuals, not the government, should have the right to decide whether to support boycotts against practices they oppose.

The civil liberties organization has pointed to the 1982 Supreme Court case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., in which the court ruled that nonviolent advocacy of politically motivated boycotts is protected as free speech.

Meanwhile, a somewhat similar bill is moving through the state Legislature and would prevent those who have contracts with the state from refusing, failing or ceasing to do business with anybody based on their race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation. But some of the bills backers have explicitly stated that the goal is to target the anti-Israel boycott as a movement.

Joseph Levine, a philosophy professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of Western Mass. Jewish Voice for Peace, testified against the state bill recently for the same reason he thinks the federal proposal is bad policy.

As a Jewish American growing up in the generation right after the Holocaust, I am well aware of the frightening consequences that attend social toleration for racism in all its forms, particularly anti-Semitism, Levine said in his testimony. But I strongly oppose this act because I believe it actually fosters, rather than combats, discrimination.

I think the bill is horrible. It is a clear violation of peoples right to express their opinion It represents a frightening kind of authoritarianism that would be absolutely horrible and a terrible precedent if it passed.

The anti-boycott act is a rare bipartisan effort in 2017, with 31 Republican and 14 Democrat co-sponsors, and a similar House bill has 117 Republican and 63 Democrat co-sponsors.

Normally, we would applaud such bipartisanship, that would see the likes of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, joining the likes of Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to cosponsor the bill. But as the ACLU presses its arguments, some are having second thoughts.

Gillibrands office said she had a different understanding of the bill than the ACLU, but she expressed a desire to change it.

We were relieved to hear that after the ACLU raised the alarm some federal legislators were reviewing their support of the bill and hope that Congressman Neal will do the same.

More:

Editorial: Anti-boycott bill threatens free speech - The Recorder - The Recorder

In this Feb. 1, 2017 file photo, University of California at Berkeley police guard the building where Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak.

With every passing week, those who predicted the tyranny of President Trump look sillier. Blocked by the courts, frustrated by Congress, assailed by the press, under mounting pressure from a special counsel, and reduced to reenacting The Apprentice within the White House, the president has passed from tyranny to trumpery to tomfoolery with the speed of a fat man stepping on a banana skin.

So does that mean we can all stop worrying about tyranny in America? No. For the worst thing about the Trump presidency is that its failure risks opening the door for the equal and opposite but much more ruthless populism of the left. Call me an unreconstructed Cold Warrior, but I find their tyranny a far more alarming and more likely prospect.

Advertisement

With few exceptions, American conservatives respect the Constitution. The modern American left, by contrast, thirsts to get rid of one of the most fundamental protections that the Constitution enshrines: free speech. If you want to see where that freedom is currently under attack in the United States, accompany me to some institutions where you might expect free expression to be revered.

Almost every month this year has seen at least one assault on free speech on an American college campus. In February the University of California, Berkeley, canceled a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, the British alt-right journalist and provocateur, after a violent demonstration. In March students at Middlebury College in Vermont shouted down the sociologist Charles Murray and assaulted his faculty host. In April, it was the turn of conservative writer Heather MacDonald at Claremont McKenna and pro-Trump journalist Ann Coulter at Berkeley.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

Nor is it only right-wing speakers who have been targeted. Bret Weinstein, a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Washington state, always thought of himself as deeply progressive. In May, however, it was his turn to fall victim to the unfree speech vigilantes. Weinstein refused to acquiesce when white students, staff, and faculty were invited to leave campus for a day. In response, a group of about 50 students confronted him outside his classroom, shrilly accusing him of supporting white supremacy and refusing to listen to his counter-arguments.

Safe spaces for speech arent free. Free speech isnt safe.

No one could accuse the great Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins of being right-wing. Yet last month it was his turn to be silenced. A public radio station in you guessed it Berkeley canceled a discussion of his latest book because (in the words of a spokesman) he has said things that I know have hurt people, a misleading allusion to the atheist Dawkinss forthright criticism of Islam. The stations general manager declared: We believe that it is our free speech right not to participate with anyone who uses hateful or hurtful language against a community that is already under attack.

These are weasel words similar to those published in The New York Times back in April by Ulrich Baer, a professor of comparative literature at New York University who also glories in the title of vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity. The idea of freedom of speech, wrote Baer, does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.

Advertisement

Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute, Baer went on. [I]t requires the vigilant and continuing examination of its parameters.

Sorry, mate. Freedom of expression is an unchanging absolute and, as a free speech absolutist, I am here (a) to defend to the death your right to publish such drivel and (b) to explain to as many people as possible why it is so dangerous.

Freedom is rarely killed off by people chanting Down with Freedom! It is killed off by people claiming that the greater good/the general will/the community/the proletariat requires examination of the parameters (or some such cant phrase) of individual liberty. If the criterion for censorship is that nobodys feelings can be hurt, we are finished as a free society.

Where such arguments lead is just a long-haul flight away.

The regime of Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, in Venezuela, used to be the toast of such darlings of the American Left as Naomi Klein, whose 2007 book The Shock Doctrine praised Venezuela as a zone of relative economic calm in a world dominated by marauding free market economists. Today (as was eminently foreseeable 10 years back), Venezuela is in a state of economic collapse, its opposition leaders are in jail, and its constitution is about to be rewritten yet again to keep the Chavista dictatorship in power. Another regime where those who speak freely land in jail is Saudi Arabia, a regime lauded by Womens March leader and sharia law enthusiast Linda Sarsour.

Mark my words, while I can still publish them with impunity: The real tyrants, when they come, will be for diversity (except of opinion) and against hate speech (except their own).

See the original post:

The biggest threat to free speech? The left - The Boston Globe

Comedian and activist Chelsea Handler faced a wave of social media backlash over the weekend for her advocacy of European-inspired laws that restrict freedom of expression.

The star of Netflixs Chelsea told over 7.5 million Twitter followers Sunday that America should adopt laws that penalize individuals who laugh at racist jokes a comment that didnt sit well with her audience, which noted the irony of an American comedian pushing for added restrictions on the First Amendment.

2 Chinese guys were arrested in Berlin for making Nazi salutes. Wouldnt it be nice 2 have laws here for people who think racism is funny? Ms. Handler tweeted.

Comedians Against The First Amendment, deadpanned The Daily Beasts Lachlan Markay. Folks like @chelseahandler ride the legal coattails of freedoms won by folks like Lenny Bruce, then demand their contemporaries be arrested.

See, the thing is, youre as much of a fascist as the guys throwing up the Nazi salute, replied conservative author and pundit Ben Shapiro.

Dumbest tweet on Twitter today. Congratulations, added YouTube star and political commentator Mark Dice.

Others noted that Ms. Handlers past comments would possibly run afoul of such laws, including a September tweet joking that actor Brad Pitt wanted the China in divorce proceedings with Angelia Jolie and that she wanted [adopted Asian children] Pax and Maddox.

#sorrycouldnthelpmyself, she wrote at the time.

View original post here:

Chelsea Handler calls for free speech curbs, laws against 'people who think racism is funny' - Washington Times

Arab rulers across the Middle East detest free speech. The demand that Al- Jazeera close its operations is no surprise. Al-Jazeera (which means the island) offers talk shows, documentaries, and news in Arabic, the language of the region that reaches more than 350 million Arabic-speaking people from Mauritania to Yemen. Headquartered in Doha, Qatar, a native Arab land, Al-Jazeera has adopted an iconoclastic motto opinion and the other opinion.

For most Arab rulers, there is always only one opinion, the opinion of the government, and for them all other opinions are false, alien, and subversive. This commentary analyzes why Arab rulers are hostile to free speech, particularly the home-grown free speech, emanating from within the region, in Arabic dialects and metaphors, by Arab intellectuals, analysts, and critics.

For centuries, the Arab rulers are used to reverence, hand-kissing, and bowing. The Arab rulers, be they military officers, kings, emirs, or presidents, share a similar concept of leadership. They truly believe in their hearts that they are the men-in-authority chosen with divine will. They cherish an automatically presumed self-concept of being noble, just, and sagacious. Witness how General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Egyptian martinet, who overthrew a democratically-elected government, smiles with condescending wisdom. Such men as sovereigns (and there are no women Arab rulers) are not open to free speech.

Also historically, the Arab rulers have been tolerant of foreign criticism but not of internal dissent. Even today, the Arab rulers tolerate the non-Arab opinions broadcasted by the BBC, Voice of America, Press TV (Iran), or any other foreign outfit because the Arab rulers rely on an overarching paradigm that the foreigners, including Europeans, Americans, and Iranians, brood ill-will against the glorious Arab civilization that once dominated the world for centuries and gifted the world with the religion of Islam. They dismiss the Europeans as colonists, they deride the Americans as Islamophobes, and they scorn the Iranians as Shias, who are corrupting the true message of Islam that only the Arab rulers understand and have been ordained by Allah to preserve.

Al-Jazeera offers internal dissent, which is interpreted as baghyan (rebellion). The real-time reporting that deviates from the official truth, the unfavorable documentaries, and intellectual ruminations, aired in various shows at Al-Jazeera, all are seen as internal threat to political order that the Arab governments have imposed without the will of the people. Unintendedly, for that is the fallout of free speech, Al-Jazeera challenges the historical narrative of infallible Muslim rulers who can do no wrong.

In Arab countries, banning Al-Jazeera is seen as the right thing to suppress fitna (mischief), another convenient concept that the Arab rulers frequently invoke to arrest journalists, lash critics in public, and execute intellectuals and scholars. In Egypt, for example, Hassan al-Banna was assassinated in 1949, Sayyid Qutub was hanged in 1966, as both scholars were seen as the purveyors of fitna. President Morsi, elected in 2012, is in prison accused of terrorism and faces capital punishment. Egypt, the most prominent Arabic speaking country, has blocked or banned Al-Jazeera in cahoots with U.A.E, and Saudi Arabia. All are determined to eliminate fitna (fake news, lies, and terrorism) that Al-Jazeera allegedly promotes.

The Arab rulers, the self-appointed defenders of true religion, defame Islam as the peoples of the world gather the impression that Islam is hostile to democracy and free speech. Even though the majority of Muslims, living in Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan, and many other nations, are non-Arabs, the world continues to associate Islam with the Arabs, particularly with Saudi Arabia, where the prophet is buried and where the Quran was revealed in Arabic. Despite the expansion of Islam in all continents, what the Arab rulers do or say have significant bearing on the image of Islam for non-Muslims.

Even Islamophobia in the West is a distorted reaction to the Middle Eastern customs that have little to do with the teachings of Islam. Seeing that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, seeing that the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State hailed from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq, and seeing the failed efforts to bring democracy in Arab countries, non-Muslims of the world construct a view of Islam rooted in misogyny, terrorism, and tyranny. The opposition to Shariah in the United States has everything to do with what the Americans witness in the Middle East.

Outside the Middle East, Islam has a different ethos. Consider Pakistan, a country carved out of India in the name of Islam. Only a few days ago, the Supreme Court disqualified a democratically elected prime minister, the highest political office in the countryan unthinkable event in the Arab heartland. In Pakistan, hundreds of newspapers and TV channels are determined on a daily basis to find faults with every aspect of the government and opposition. Although Pakistan has suffered military interventions, free speech has remained vibrant for most of its history. In this country, no credible paradigm paints the ruler as noble, wise, or appointed by Allah. Rulers are seen fallible and replaceable. Sometimes, the military generals get away with murder but this impunity is never associated with the dictates of Islam. In fact, even supporters of military generals advocate equality under the norms of Islamic justice.

Arab rulers detest free speech because they obtain and retain political power without the will of the people. They see free speech as a threat to the unrepresentative form of government they institute. The convenient labels of baghyan and fitna, mentioned in the Quran, are arbitrarily invoked to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent. The label of terrorism is also convenient to eliminate opposing viewpoints. The proposal to shut down Al-Jazeera reflects how the Arab rulers build their castles in sand that cannot tolerate the winds of free speech.

(The author has no affiliation with Al-Jazeera.)

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Link:

Why Arab Rulers Detest Free Speech - HuffPost

Shortly before the ACLU of Maryland filed suit against Gov. Larry Hogan for erasing comments and banning some users from his Facebook page, a federal judge in Virginia found that a Loudoun County supervisor had violated the First Amendment by blocking one constituent from her page for all of 12 hours. The ruling is instructive not because it necessarily means the ACLU will win its suit against Mr. Hogan this was, after all, the opinion of one federal district judge, and the circumstances were somewhat different. But it does illustrate just how thorny the issues of free speech are in the digital age.

Governor Hogan has reportedly banned a few hundred people from commenting on his page at one time or another, most during the Baltimore riots, when officials in his office claim it came under a coordinated attack, and during the uproar over President Donald Trumps Muslim ban when many users sought to goad him into condemning the president. His social media policy, promulgated this year, outlines a number of reasons a comment may be deleted or a user banned, including profanity, threatening language, an attempt to engage in commerce or the repeated posting of identical comments as part of what the office deems a coordinated effort or in a manner that is off-topic.

The Virginia case suggests thats not inherently a problem. The ruling places public officials social media pages firmly in the realm of the public forum, which means they are subject to First Amendment protections. But it also recognizes the right for a public official to moderate his or her social media pages to maintain a constructive space for constituent dialogue. Policing off-topic comments or attempts to drown out other voices can fall into that rubric. The key question is whether the public official is moderating the page in a content-neutral way that is, without favor to one point of view or another. In the Loudoun case, the supervisor openly admitted blocking the poster because she didnt like what he said.

Governor Hogan purports to follow a policy that doesnt treat commenters differently based on whether they agree with him, but the ACLU, in its lawsuit, contends otherwise. The organization spent months monitoring what comments were deleted and which ones were allowed to stay, and it found that Governor Hogan and [his staff] did not, in policy or practice, uniformly bar Marylanders from posting off-topic comments that lauded the governors various initiatives, supported his policy in initiatives (whether the subject of a post or not), or repeated similar positive commentary. Similarly, the governor and and his staff do not, in practice, delete offensive or insulting comments particularly when made by posters supportive of the governor. Instead, the social media policy was drafted to allow [them] to exercise arbitrary and unfettered discretion to delete comments, or block commenters of which they did not approve, under the guise of deeming them off-topic, repetitive or unacceptable.

Mr. Hogan is by no means the only politician facing criticism for deleting comments or blocking posters. President Donald Trump is being sued by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University for blocking followers on Twitter, and the ACLU of Kentucky is suing that states governor, Matt Bevin, for blocking people on Twitter and Facebook. To one degree or another, they have voiced the idea that their social media accounts are a means to communicate directly to supporters without the filter of the media. But if thats what they want, they should issue press releases. Social medias basic characteristic is that it is interactive, and thus when a politician uses an account for official business, it becomes, to a degree courts are just trying to figure out, a public forum where First Amendment rules apply.

Whichever side of that evolving legal line Mr. Hogans practices lie on, its clear that they do him more harm than good. Even if the ACLU is wrong and Mr. Hogan and his staff are being scrupulously fair to commenters regardless of their political views, a policy of deleting comments and blocking posters opens him up to constant scrutiny. Thats a headache he doesnt need. He would do better to consider the wisdom of state social media guidelines that preceded his policy and cautioned against deleting comments: If a negative comment is posted, it opens the conversation and more times than not, your followers will respond in a defensive manner or address your concerns for you. Taking down antagonistic comments may open your program up to backlash from your followers and you may lose credibility.

Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Visit link:

Free speech and Hogan's Facebook page - Baltimore Sun

Gab

by Allum Bokhari7 Aug 20170

The memo, entitled PC Considered Harmful,criticized Google for maintaining an atmosphere of political groupthink, in which employees with viewpoints that challenge leftist narratives are forced to keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs. He also criticized Google for ignoring the latest research on gender differences and their interplay with the lack of women in STEM jobs.

With the employees career under attack by SJWs inside and outside Google, the CEO of Gab.ai has now offered the still-unnamed staffer a job in the event that he is forced out of Google.

In a comment to Breitbart News, Gab CEO Andrew Torba said:

Gab supports the free and open expression of all ideas. What this document and the reaction to it prove is that Silicon Valley exists in a bubble world where Wrong Think is not permitted.

They preach tolerance and yet are intolerant of any conservatives ideas. They praise diversity and yet shun conservatives out of their workplace. They applaud the bravery of folks who speak out when it aligns with their own far-left agenda, but scorn a conservative who dares to stand up for what they believe in.

The Ideological Echo Chamber has now been exposed for the world to see. We plan to continue to magnify this message and the voices of others who are brave enough to risk their job to take a stand against the cultural Marxism and far-left status quo hypocrisy of Silicon Valley.

Tech, Andrew Torba, Gab, Gab.ai, Google

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

View post:

Free Speech Platform Gab Wants To Hire Google's Anti-PC Manifesto Author - Breitbart News