Everyone knows that the Constitution protects free speech under the First Amendment.

But many may not realize that the First Amendment also protects commercial speech, such as advertisements. Even though the level of protection afforded to commercial speech is less than that given to other kinds of speech, especially political speech, businesses still have rights about what they say.

The First Amendment is also implicated when laws require labeling for commercial enterprises. For example, it is entirely legal for government to require fast food businesses to post the calorie count on the products they serve to the public. There are innumerable other examples of required disclosures, such as gas mileage and safety ratings for automobiles and whether a newly constructed home is subject to Mello-Roos taxes.

One infamous example of forced speech in California was imposed via Proposition 65, passed by voters in 1986. Commercial enterprises are required to post warning labels that their products or place of business may contain substances known to cause cancer. But Prop. 65 warnings are so ubiquitous in California that they have become meaningless. They are found on everything from bread to potato chips to chocolate chip cookies. In California, it appears, everything causes cancer.

But a recent court ruling over acrylamide, a naturally occurring substance that is formed in the process of baking goods, may have reined in the absurdity of Prop. 65 warnings just a bit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because scientific evidence couldnt come to a single conclusion over whether acrylamide in food and beverages can cause cancer in humans, the Prop. 65 warning signs for these products were likely misleading.

Turns out that government itself was violating truth in advertising laws.

But perhaps the greater benefit from the ruling has to do with inhibiting nuisance lawsuits that cost businesses millions of dollars. Thats because Prop. 65 has a private right of action provision allowing attorneys to sue businesses on behalf of the state. Prop. 65 essentially deputizes private trial lawyers to search for evidence of noncompliance.

The elimination of the misleading Prop. 65 warning for acrylamide might be a welcome step in reducing false or unproven claims that confuse consumers and cause adverse market effects. This not only would help businesses but also consumers who end up paying more for goods and services when businesses face shakedown lawsuits.

Lawsuit abuse is a huge problem for California and has resulted in the state having the worst rating in the nation from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation as a Judicial Hellhole. Prop. 65 lawsuits are a major reason for that dubious designation since they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per day, not to mention the costs for their own attorneys as well as those of the plaintiff. Given that there are approximately 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, the law presents a great temptation for unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

But Californians are waking up to the absurdity of Prop. 65.

A few years ago there was a push to put a Prop. 65 warning on coffee, again because of the presence of acrylamide. But the blowback from the public, as well as ridicule from late-night TV hosts, may have been a factor in a legal victory for sanity.

Were all for transparency. But Prop. 65 has long outlived its usefulness in providing consumers with reliable information. In fact, it has done just the opposite.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read the rest here:

Free speech and trivial lawsuits - The Whittier Daily News

Dr. Rita began writing just before George Floyd was killed; its publication date, 5/24/2022, falls on the eve of the second anniversary of his death

The book is designed to rewire our understanding of systemic racism and offer a practical approach to dismantling oppression

LOS ANGELES, May 11, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D. is a white woman with dual Italian/American citizenship who has studied systemic racism for 30 years, across four continents. Dr. Rita channels this wealth of experience and academics into her powerful new book, Digging Up the Seeds of white Supremacy (Collective Power Media), to be released May 24, 2022 the eve of the second anniversary of George Floyd's death.

A coach and healing professional, she interweaves memoir with a robust discourse on race and culture to bridge the gap between the construct of racism and the practice of self-healing. Dr. Rita's narrative is grounded in historical fact; she adds illustrations to visualize her message, personal practice notes, and "How To" guidelines to help readers embody antiracism.

Created via iPad, Dr. Rita's drawingswere conceptualized as graphic recordings to assist readers in digesting complex issues, further support visual learners, and pictorialize 500+ years of history across 10 systems. The tree image "The Whole System: Roots to Branches" functions as an infographic for the book's thematic flow: the System with a capital "S," which brings all the single systems with a lower-case "s" together.

Dr. Rita says that when we act from fear, we're upholding "the System." The progressive, liberal side of our culture continues to accumulate evidence of injustices but we have not found our way to diffuse them. Analysis has led to paralysis. How do we use such evidence not to confirm what we already know, but to transform the racist systems that drive society to change the world for the better, for everyone?

In the "Personal Practice" section of the chapter "Building Collective Power," she writes,

Later, she writes, "We must stop accepting that inequality, inequity, and injustice are normal and inevitable. We must engage in collective intellectual imagination about what it looks like to meet the needs of all."

At a time when misinformation is rampant, distrust of "the other" is epidemic, and rights are threatened daily, this book could not be timelier. Dr. Rita hopes that by following its lead, people can build collective power and co-create new seeds together "an exercise in replacing fear with love."

About the author:Dr. Rita Fierro Ph.D. is an intellectual artist, author, speaker, and radio host. For 30 years, she has studied systemic racism. Combining a coaching approach with evaluative thinking, she leads a consulting firm that assesses projects, social inequities, and provides processes that illuminate complexity for businesses, foundations, non-profits, NGOs, and the United Nations. Dr. Rita has a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, and a masters in Sociology from the University of Rome, Italy. She co-founded Home for Good Coalition so as to transform systemic racism by placing the voices of people who were traumatized by systems at the center of its work. Born in New York City, she lived in her family's ancestral town in Italy from age 10 until her college years. Dr. Rita comes from a long line of traditional healers, and she is both a Reiki and family constellation practitioner.

Dropbox: images, excerpts, illustrations, etc: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r01yt4fa62ki8es/AAACXujVS2Avf9F-aT0Npaaia?dl=0

Dr. Rita interviewed for Life Her podcasthttps://youtu.be/PK0JnCDncTA - Discussing:The Bridge Between Systematic Racism and Healing

Medium articles by Dr. Rita:https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/being-white-in-racial-healing-work-7057d4024ad7https://medium.com/@ritasfierro/white-people-aint-free-7ac633c875a9

Digging up the Seeds of white SupremacyISBN 978-0-5783786-3-3 (Hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-0-5 (Kindle)ISBN 979-8-9858796-2-9 (Audio book)ISBN 979-8-9858796-3-6 (Large-print hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-1-2 (paperback)https://www.amazon.com/Rita-Sinorita-Fierro/e/B09ZXT9FFWhttps://www.drritawrites.com/

Contact: Laura Grover: [emailprotected] or 310-994-1690

SOURCE Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D.

See the original post here:

At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems...

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WOULD like to comment about things to do with the coming election.

I have been getting together with a small group and making banners to save koalas.

We put banners up last Saturday and they were gone shortly after dark.

One banner took three people many hours to paint, then hand stitch the loop for the bamboo rod top and bottom.

They have also taken many A4 posters off community notice boards and three Climate Action Now posters were removed.

Talking with a ranger he advised they had a call from the Greens as twenty roadside posters had been removed.

The loss is one thing but for us it is more disappointing that we have people in our community that do not want free speech and want to stop alternate views.

These are people who do not want action on climate change, do not want an ethical Government and a fair, decent and democratic Australia.

Regards,Colin HUTTON,Thora.

Read the rest here:

OPINION: Shutting Down Free Speech and Alternate Views - News Of The Area

Updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on May 11, 2022

The lurid spectacle that is Johnny Depps $50 million defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard hasnt just tarnished his star and hers with allegations that he beat her and violated her with a bottle or that she severed part of his finger and emptied her bowels in the marital bed. (Both deny wrongdoing, and Heard has countersued for $100 million.) Amid this grotesquerie, it might be possible to overlook the bizarre involvement of the ACLU. But the civil-rights organizations cringeworthy role deserves closer scrutiny because of its centrality to the case, and because it exemplifies the degree to which the ACLU has lost its way in recent years.

The heart of Depps claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as a public figure representing domestic abusea thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadnt pitched the idea to the Postthe ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organizations general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an ambassador on womens rights with a focus on gender-based violence. The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heards ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)

The ACLUs bestowal of an ambassadorship and scribe-for-hire services upon a scandal-plagued actor willing to pay seven figures to transform herself into a victims advocate and advance her acting careerHeard pushed for a publication date that coincided with the release of her film Aquamanis part of the groups continuing decline. Once a bastion of free speech and high-minded ideals, the ACLU has become in many respects a caricature of its former self.

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU declines to defend civil rights

Over the organizations 100-year history, the ACLUs unique value has been its apolitical willingness to stand up for all speech, regardless of the speakers identity, and to stand up for those accused, no matter what the accusation. This content-neutral, take-all-comers stance is based on the premise that the silencing of one side will inevitably lead to a collective hush irreconcilable with the free marketplace of ideas and the commitment to due process that are the hallmarks of our democracy. Doing this often-unpopular work turns on the belief that having an informed and independent-minded citizenry requires the ability to countenance, analyze, and, yes, at times defend opposing points of view.

In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLUs successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about limited resources and the potential effect on marginalized groups, the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose values are contrary to our values.

By our values, the ACLU was referring to the progressive causes it has championed with fervor and great fundraising success since the election of Donald Trump: immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice. Should its lawyers decide to take on a client espousing opposing views, the organization instructed them to engage in a public campaign denouncing those views in press statements, op-eds, social media, and other available fora, and participating in counter-protests. How, exactly, loudly disavowing their clients is consistent with lawyers duty to zealously represent them was not explained. Speaking as a criminal-defense lawyer, I dont think it can be.

I dont look to the ACLU to affirm my beliefs or those of my allies. On the contrary, I look to the ACLU to defend everyone, including my ideological enemies. To do that work, it cannot be beholden to any political party or ideology. Yet in 2018, the ACLU spent $800,000 on a campaign ad for Stacey Abrams during her run for governor in Georgia and $1 million in an attack-ad campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence, but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU should keep representing deplorables

The ACLU now seems largely unable or unwilling to uphold its core values. To be fair, the organization still goes to bat for some causes that are associated with conservatives and free-speech absolutists, including the right to bear arms, of anti-Semites to protest, and of parochial schools to discriminate in hiring based on religion. And yet since Trumps election, according to The New York Times, the organizations annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubledbut only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its servicesand filled its coffersas it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLUs hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to reenroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling.

This article has been updated to clarify the details of Terence Dougherty's testimony.

More:

Helping Amber Heard Was Just the Start of the ACLU's Problems - The Atlantic

Were living, learning and teaching in a time when our relationship with discourse and debate is increasingly fraught. Everywhere, including in higher education, there is increased hesitancy and, sometimes, a complete inability to engage with perspectives, opinions or ideas different from our own. At the same time, a flood of disinformation causes widespread confusion and distrust. Together, these challenges undermine our future. This isnt only higher educations problem, but it is incumbent on us to help solve it, as it threatens our democracy, communities and well-being.

Unfettered, evidence-based intellectual inquiry is at the very heart of what we do as a university. Our highest goals are to prepare our students to thrive and to expand humanitys knowledge of itself and our universe. And that universe is not getting any simpler. We fail our students if we dont help them hone the skills to successfully encounter complexity, difference and thorny, complicated problems.

Free speech, civil discourse, civil education, diversity of ideas, pluralism, engaged listeninga wealth of terminology describes these issues, but terminology should not be our focus. What is most urgent is that we actively engage in respectful discussion and learning with complex, different and diverse ideas. At the University of Denver, we are taking on this work by being explicit about what we hope to achieve.

Most important, we want everyone in our community to feel free to express themselvesand to uphold that same freedom for others. Discussions, no matter how divided or tense, must remain respectful, evidence-based and guided by the shared goal of seeking greater understanding. In our classrooms and everywhere on campus, we seek to model the myriad skills needed for civil discourse: respect, empathy, inclusivity, kindness, and an openness to learn and engage across difference. And we provide opportunities for our students to sharpen those skills. Our biggest challenge, but one to which we are fervently committed, is to provide balance and symmetry, considering voices from all walks of life, including those with very different experiences, because doing so adds to the richness of our community and gives our students the deepest education possible.

As we work to provide and affirm these values, we avoid pitfalls that undermine or distort our mission. By engaging in diverse ideas and perspectives, the University as an institution does not elevate or favor a particular way of thinking or ideology. We welcome respectful protests and disagreements. Indeed, they are important forms of expression. As the community encourages engagement with difference, the goal is not agreement or consensus, but learning and understanding. Disagreement is important and perhaps even essential.

This work is rife with nuance, but that is why it is vital that we commit to it wholly. Our students need these skills if they are going to be the leaders, thinkers, doers and creators that society needs. Difference is inevitable. Its also important. Education itself is based on encountering new information, new ideas and being powerfully changed by it.

We have work to do, but no one is better able to do it than we are.

See the original post:

It's time to recommit to civil discourse and free speech - University of Denver Magazine

Judge Davis acknowledged that the board had also imposed some punishments more concrete than a reprimand, like making Mr. Wilson ineligible for reimbursement for college-related travel. Those additional penalties, the judge wrote, did not violate his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Wilsons lawyers told the justices that the power to censure must have limits. Elected bodies can censure their members for what they say during the lawmaking process, they wrote, and for conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. But outside the official realm, they wrote, the First Amendment forbids a government bodys official punishment of a speaker for merely expressing disagreement with a political majority.

Those may appear to be fine distinctions. Mr. Wilsons brief in the case, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, gave examples to illustrate how they would work outside the legislative process.

A censure would be permissible for illegal marijuana use, for example, but not for statements supporting the legalization of marijuana use, the brief said. Likewise, a censure would be permissible for slander, but not for statements that merely criticize.

The full Fifth Circuit deadlocked on whether to rehear the case, by an 8-to-8 vote. Dissenting from the decision to deny further review, Judge Edith H. Jones said the panels First Amendment analysis was backward. The boards censure was itself speech worthy of protection, she wrote, particularly in a polarized era.

Given the increasing discord in society and governmental bodies, the attempts of each side in these disputes to get a leg up on the other, and the ready availability of weapons of mass communication with which each side can tar the other, the panels decision is the harbinger of future lawsuits, Judge Jones wrote. It weaponizes any gadfly in a legislative body.

Political infighting of this sort, she wrote, should not be dignified with a false veneer of constitutional protection and has no place in the federal courts.

Read the rest here:

Are Censures of Politicians a Form of Free Speech or a Threat to It? - The New York Times

As an academic dean of library services for the past 40 years, I think I have a good eye for what constitutes censorship. Cancel culture, a new term for an old and deadly form of silencing your enemies has recently shown its ugly face and has unmistakably assumed the role of free speech bullies. Not since the McCarthy Era have we seen such proscription of speech, and it appears to be unrelenting. The eagerness with which these new speech bullies seek to prohibit ideas is now ubiquitous, and the desire to cancel scores of individuals from Washington State to, well, the heart of the reddest of Red States, Rock Hill, South Carolina, where I live, is raging.

Cancel culture isnt just tendentious; its also malicious. Dr. Seusss books now struggle to remain in the reading canon for children. Dozens of our great writers, including Twain, Shakespeare, Carlyle, and medieval culture and literature, have been canceled. More authors are on the cancel culture chopping block. I find this form of censorship appalling. We all should.

Sadly, this isnt just a group of louche-minded malcontents, either. With no fanfare, Amazon has decided to withdraw from selling any books it deems hate speech, the first such book being one that dares to question sex reassignment among minors. Cancel culture is so widespread it has its talons even in Congress.

What disturbs most, however, is these new free speech bullies are everywhere. Sure, you might expect to see them and their work in places like Los Angeles, California, Portland, Oregon, or Antifa strongholds like Seattle, Washington. But in the heart of conservative politics in South Carolina?

Sadly, yes. Forty-five days from my retirement, I became a victim of cancel culture for a two-part article I wrote for a professional library magazine in March 2020. My crimes were threefold: daring to call our then plague the Wuhan Virus, a phrase nearly every media in the country had used or was still using; repeating an Obama Administration wordplay (the Kung-Flu), and pointing out East-West culture differences. The second part never saw the light of day.

A maelstrom of maledictions followed, first from the magazine I had written for, for the last 15 years (ironically called Against the Grain). Not only had the magazine given me my own column, but it had in this instance showcased part one on its front cover as one to read. After less than a dozen vocal subscribers complained it to be racist, the magazine unilaterally pulled the piece and apologized for its appearance. It didnt end there. The American Library Association and the Asian Pacific Library Association also chimed in. Blood was in the water, and they wanted their part of the prized flesh.

Next, my university employer of 21 years piled on. My articles were censored from our faculty digital archive, and I was paraded before my peers as racist and xenophobic in an email from my provost. She later recommended reading materials for my reeducation. All this took place at Winthrop University, a state institution of about 5,500 students in the Palmetto State, a state that elected Republicans in every contested seat in the 2020 elections.

Cancel culture usually ends badly for the victim, including loss of reputation, standing, even employment. While I have lost some reputation in my professional circles, my story ended well. I was able, thanks to some prominent friends (among them my congressman and state senator), my cancel culture moment ended with a written apology from the provost for her overreach sent campus-wide, another apology from the Interim president, and reinstatement of my articles to our digital commons.

At the very least, the First Amendment allows ideas to fight it out in the marketplace of ideas. Some ideas will appeal, others will not, but none are to be silenced from the get-go by someone who deems them unworthy by his or her private definition of the term. The First Amendment isnt a weapon, or it isnt supposed to be, especially by an institution of higher learning.

If all of this sounds hyperbolic to you, overblown in a kind of hysterical way, just remember how these things work. If cancel culture can erase my right to free speech in one of the countrys reddest states, it can also come for yours. If men and women of good spirit do nothing, you can count on cancel culture coming for your free speech as well.

I hope for all our sakes; we survive this onslaught.

Mark Y. Herring is professor emeritus, dean of library services from Winthrop University. Herring spent 42 years as dean or director in academic libraries in Tennessee, Oklahoma and South Carolina. He was most recently appointed by Gov. Henry McMaster to the South Carolina State Library Board. He resides with his wife, Carol, in Rock Hill. Republished from the Carolina Journal.

Read the original post:

OPINION: The new free speech bullies - The Richmond Observer

The longest war in United States history has finally ended after nearly twenty years. The Associated Press has reported that the final US troops have left Afghanistan and now President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have reiterated this. Much of the coverage has been negative in the past few weeks given the Talibans speedy takeover and the attack outside the Kabul airport on Thursday that took upwards of 200 lives. However, exiting Afghanistan was something that had to be done and Joe Biden followed through on what George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump were unable to. The alternative was remaining in the country for five, ten, twenty or even a hundred years as some have suggested and that just wasnt going to be a tenable solution. Biden is set to address the nation today and he will mention there will be continued efforts to get American citizens and Afghan allies out of the country if they want to leave. In the short term, many will see the tumultuous exit of US personnel as a failure, but zooming out, history is likely to view Bidens decision kindly.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

Afghanistan Antony Blinken Associated Press David Pakman Joe Biden The David Pakman Show United States War

See the original post here:

Joe Biden Has Officially Ended a 20-Year War - Free Speech TV

The United States has officially ended the longest war in its history with the final troops clearing out of Afghanistan. President Biden addressed the nation to explain his decision to end the war and posed the following question to his critics: to those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan, I ask, What is the vital national interest? Even though polling data has shown for a long time that its time for America to get out of the Middle East, members of the media havent seemed so pleased with Bidens decision. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki held a press conference yesterday and one reporter asked her, does the president envision any situation in which he might deploy a large amount of US troops abroad under his presidency? The fact that the default solution to conflict for this reporter is extensive military presence goes to show there needs to be a paradigm shift when it comes to US foreign policy. Another reporter told Psaki that Biden seemed angry in his speech to the American public, asking whos he mad at? This pushback from the media was predictable, as conflicts tend to drive ratings. Now, were witnessing the media try to get the last play it can out of the twenty-year war in Afghanistan before having to move on to the next topic.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

Afghanistan David Pakman Jen Psaki Joe Biden Media National Security Taliban The David Pakman Show United States War

Here is the original post:

War-Thirsty Media Demanding Another War - Free Speech TV

In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a womans reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech.

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their optionsnow have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.

We will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

SB8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, encourages private persons to file lawsuits against anyone who knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion. It doesnt matter whether that person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the law, that is, the laws new and broadly expansive definition of illegal abortion. And you can be liable even if you simply intend to help, regardless, apparently, of whether an illegal abortion actually resulted from your assistance.

And although you may defend a lawsuit if you believed the doctor performing the abortion complied with the law, it is really hard to do so. You must prove that you conducted a reasonable investigation, and as a result reasonably believed that the doctor was following the law. Thats a lot to do before you simply post something to the internet, and of course you will probably have to hire a lawyer to help you do it.

SB8 is a bounty law: it doesnt just allow these lawsuits, it provides a significant financial incentive to file them. It guarantees that a person who files and wins such a lawsuit will receive at least $10,000 for each abortion that the speech aided or abetted, plus their costs and attorneys fees. At the same time, SB8 may often shield these bounty hunters from having to pay the defendants legal costs should they lose. This removes a key financial disincentive they might have had against bringing meritless lawsuits.

Moreover, lawsuits may be filed up to six years after the purported aiding and abetting occurred. And the law allows for retroactive liability: you can be liable even if your aiding and abetting conduct was legal when you did it, if a later court decision changes the rules. Together this creates a ticking time bomb for anyone who dares to say anything that educates the public about, or even discusses, abortion online.

Given this legal structure, and the laws vast application, there is no doubt that we will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

And unfortunately, its not clear when speech encouraging someone to or instructing them how to commit a crime rises to the level of aiding and abetting unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the leading case on the issue, it is a fact-intensive analysis, which means that defending the case on First amendment grounds may be arduous and expensive.

The result of all of this is the classic chilling effect: many would-be speakers will choose not to speak at all for fear of having to defend even the meritless lawsuits that SB8 encourages. And many speakers will choose to take down their speech if merely threatened with a lawsuit, rather than risk the laws penalties if they lose or take on the burdens of a fact-intensive case even if they were likely to win it.

The law does include an empty clause providing that it may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While that sounds nice, it offers no real protectionyou can already raise the First Amendment in any case, and you dont need the Texas legislature to give you permission. Rather, that clause is included to try to insulate the law from a facial First Amendment challengea challenge to the mere existence of the law rather than its use against a specific person. In other words, the drafters are hoping to ensure that, even if the law is unconstitutionalwhich it iseach individual plaintiff will have to raise the First Amendment issues on their own, and bear the exorbitant costsboth financial and otherwiseof having to defend the lawsuit in the first place.

One existing free speech bulwark47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230)will provide some protection here, at least for the online intermediaries upon which many speakers depend. Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries from state law liability arising from the speech of their users, so it provides a way for online platforms and other services to get early dismissals of lawsuits against them based on their hosting of user speech. So although a user will still have to fully defend a lawsuit arising, for example, from posting clinic hours online, the platform they used to share that information will not. That is important, because without that protection, many platforms would preemptively take down abortion-related speech for fear of having to defend these lawsuits themselves. As a result, even a strong-willed abortion advocate willing to risk the burdens of litigation in order to defend their right to speak will find their speech limited if weak-kneed platforms refuse to publish it. This is exactly the way Section 230 is designed to work: to reduce the likelihood that platforms will censor in order to protect themselves from legal liability, and to enable speakers to make their own decisions about what to say and what risks to bear with their speech.

But a powerful and dangerous chilling effect remains for users. Texass anti-abortion law is an attack on many fundamental rights, including the First Amendment rights to advocate for abortion rights, to provide basic educational information, and to counsel those considering reproductive decisions. We will keep a close eye on the lawsuits the law spurs and the chilling effects that accompany them. If you experience such censorship, please contact info@eff.org.

Read more from the original source:

New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy and Other Speech - EFF

Twitter recently came under severe pressure for allowing the Taliban to keep their account on its platform. By way of contrast, the company decided to suspend Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene for repeatedly tweeting that COVID vaccines are ineffective. In the eyes of many Americans, Twitter should have done the exact opposite. For my part, I cannot help but think that Twitter is within its right to behave as it did.

Since 2019, I have been teaching social media ethics to the aspiring computer scientists of Silicon Valley. When my students ask me about the extent of their right to free speech on social media, my answer is quite radical: they do not have a right to freedom of expression on such platforms. This is because Twitter is not a town square, and we should stop treating it like one.

Traditionally, the language of free speech is used to protect citizens from censorship when government actors abuse their power and stifle dissent. In recent years, however, social media critics have increasingly used this language to describe a very different relationship: that which exists between powerful private actors and users who generate content on their platforms.

From a legal point of view, the distinction between public and private matters. Citizens right to free speech in public spaces does not immediately translate into a right to say what they please in privately-owned spaces. By way of example, members of the public do not have a right to publish what they want in the newspaper of their choice. That the Wall Street Journal will not publish my left-wing op-eds might irk me, but this does not give me a right to demand it does so. If we conceive of social media platforms as publishers, they, therefore, have a right to control what content circulates on their platform. Indeed, the comparison between publishers and social media platforms is not far-fetched: just like editors of newspapers decide what goes on the front page, Twitters algorithms determine what users see first in their feed when they log into their account.

Of course, we might reject the publisher analogy and envision social media platforms as virtual spaces which are part of the new online public sphere. This does not make them town squares, neither literally nor metaphorically. Again, such spaces are privately owned, which means that they are more akin to public accommodations, that is, private facilities which are used by the public at large such as restaurants and clubs.

Public accommodations are subject to anti-discrimination law. For instance, a restaurant owner cannot refuse service to customers on the grounds that they are differently-abled or practice a particular religion. Yet, anti-discrimination legislation targeted at public accommodations does not extend to viewpoint discrimination. For instance, it would be quite strange for a white supremacist to argue that she is the victim of discrimination because her universitys Anti-Racist League denies her membership on the grounds of her political views. If Twitter is a public accommodation, then it might similarly have a right to exclude viewpoints that run contrary to its executives values.

In my view, abusing the language of free speech prevents us from having a fruitful democratic debate on the right to exclude viewpoints from private spaces. Accepting to engage in such debate does not mean that we have to grant tech companies unlimited powers. If we the people dislike the fact that social media platforms currently regulate content as they please, we can change anti-discrimination law and collectively decide which perspectives they should be obligated to include. From a philosophical point of view, however, shouting free speech on a crowded social media platform does not accomplish anything; it simply blurs the lines between the public and the private.

Rejecting the town square model of Twitter is not merely a matter of philosophical clarity, but also of democratic power. In fact, my suggestion is to conceive of social media firms as private spaces that can be regulated by the government. Yet, people who shout free speech are under the mistaken impression that Twitter is the government. This comes at a great cost. If Twitter is our tyrant, then the best we can do is beg it to behave differently.

Twitter is no tyrant, and we are not supplicants. We do have elected representatives whose responsibility it is to protect citizens fundamental rights as opposed to the interest of shareholders. In the end, the power to regulate big tech belongs to the democratically accountable, not to big tech itself. If they are to succeed, our grievances should be directed at them.

About the author

tienne Brown is an assistant professor of philosophy at San Jos State University, holds a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, and is a Public Voices Fellow at TheOp-Ed Project. He teaches the philosophy of law and the ethics of technology to the aspiring computer scientists of Silicon Valley.

Read more here:

[COMMENTARY] Twitter Is Not a Town Square; We Should Stop Treating It Like One - HillReporter.com

Mitigating the impact of online extremism has proven a complicated task for companies that want to protect free expression.

Social media companies have struggled to moderate hate speech and adapt to changes in how white supremacists spread their views on digital platforms. Libby Hemphill, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Information, believes machine learning technology might provide an answer.

We know that white supremacists and other types of extremists use social media to talk to each other, to recruit, to try to get their message to go mainstream, Hemphill said. The challenge has been that the platforms havent really stepped up to fight hate on their platforms.

Through a partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, Hemphill set out to teach algorithms to distinguish white supremacist and extremist speech from the typical conversations people are having on social media. Turns out, extremist groups are pretty good at hiding in plain sight but algorithms can become even better at finding them.

We cant do content moderation without some machine assistance, Hemphill said. Theres just too much content.

Hemphill started by collecting a sample of 275,000 blog posts from Stormfront, a white nationalist website. The data was fed to algorithms used to study the sentence structure of posts, detect specific phrases and flag recurring topics.

The goal was to train a machine to identify toxic language using the Stormfront conversations as a model. Algorithms compared the Stormfront data to 755,000 Twitter posts from users affiliated with the alt-right movement and another set of 510,000 Reddit posts collected from general users.

The results are still being compiled. Hemphill is hoping to unveil a public tool later this fall.

Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have been accused of stifling free speech by removing users who violate community guidelines prohibiting hate speech. Offending posts are identified by algorithms trained to detect hate speech and through reports from users.

However, advocacy organisations arent satisfied with enforcement standards.

The Center to Counter Digital Hate found the top five social media companies took no action on 84% of anti-semitic posts reported to them. CCDH, a non-profit group in the United States and the United Kingdom, flagged 714 posts through the platforms user reporting tools. The anti-semitic posts were viewed up to seven million times.

Platforms must aggressively remedy their moderation systems which have been proven to be insufficient, CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed wrote in a study announcing the groups findings.

Steps to ban white nationalist content also inspired the rise of new platforms with more relaxed content standards. Gab, MeWe and Parler purport to champion free speech but have been criticised as havens for extremists.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba promotes his website as the only place you can criticise groups like the American Jewish Congress and the ADL in emails to Gabs user base.

Hemphill said theres significant conflict revolving around what constitutes hate speech and what social platforms should do about it. She also acknowledged concerns that machines can make mistakes and unfairly punish users.

The challenge is that we as a community dont share a set of values, Hemphill said. We disagree about what is hateful and what ought to be permissible. One of the things that I would like to see come out of work like this is more explicit discussions about what our values are and what is okay with us and what isnt. Then we can worry about what we ought to teach machines.

Finding the line can be tricky. Accurately identifying nuanced racial stereotypes and microaggressions is harder than finding slurs, Hemphill said. Theres also a large number of posts containing meme images and videos that are harder to accurately catalogue.

Stormfront was used as a baseline in Hemphills research because the group openly identifies as a forum for white nationalists. Alt-right Twitter users were selected from a study commissioned by the Centre for American Progress.

Beyond the use of racial slurs and other kinds of toxic language, Hemphill said subtle differences were found between white nationalists and the average internet user. For example, white nationalists swear less often, possibly a tactic to appear more palatable to mainstream audiences.

They are sort of politely hateful, Hemphill said. If youve spent any time on the Internet at all, you know that its a pretty profane place, but white supremacists are not profane. They are marked by what they dont do as well.

Hate speech makes up a relatively small amount of content on the Internet, Hemphill said, though it makes a large impact on whoever sees it. She plans to collect more data from smaller websites like Gab, 4chan and Parler to continue teaching algorithms to identify hate speech.

Ultimately, the goal is to encourage social media companies to create inclusive spaces for discussion.

Its OK to be freaked out about big tech, and its OK to be freaked out about academic researchers and what we may be doing, Hemphill said. I think the more this conversation happens in the open and the more data is shared among folks who are trying to understand how these decisions get made, the better, more just decisions about what is permissible will come from that openness. mlive.com/Tribune News Service

Read the original:

Stopping online hate speech is hard. New research teaches machines to find white nationalist content - The Star Online

Republicans on campus shouldnt be stereotyped or afraid to speak up.

Ryan Adams for the Daily Iowan

Anti-mask protesters stand in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol building before the opening of the 2021 legislative session on Monday, Jan. 11, 2021. Despite Gov. Kim Reynolds emergency proclamation mandating masks worn when social distancing indoors is not possible, house republicans made the announcement last week that masks would not be required during the session.

My former professor said any kid who identifies as gay or lesbian and grows up in a conservative household will be oppressed.

This accusation makes it seem like you cannot be queer and conservative, and all conservatives are homophobic. However, Peter Thiel, a conservative who identifies as gay, spoke at the Republican National Convention after the 2016 election. As someone who cant have biological kids, Ill be happy with either a queer or straight kid. Its not right to automatically label a conservative transphobic or homophobic without asking about their views first.

Despite people assuming conservatives are transphobic or homophobic, many of us support LGBTQ rights. For example, a survey found 61 percent of Republicans support anti-discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations for gay and transgender people. According to a 2020 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, over half of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Conservatives need to add to diversity of opinion on campus by speaking out, but people also need to stop stereotyping us.

Micah Broekemeier, a UI junior majoring in history who is conservative, said conservatives need to speak out more. He said he wore MAGA hats and Trump shirts on campus and did not receive any hate on-campus for doing so.

During the election cycle, whatever candidate I supported, I wore it on my sleeve, Broekemeier said.

While Im glad Broekemeier has never felt any hate toward him because he is a conservative, there have been incidents of conservative beliefs being silenced at other universities. At the University of Northern Iowa, their student government denied a Student for Life group a chance to register as a student organization based on the claim they included hateful rhetoric.

UNI president Mark Nook overruled the senators decision. However, a conservative group of students should not have to go through all this trouble to have their First Amendment rights granted.

At my first homecoming at the University of Iowa in 2018, the UI College Republicans (UICRs) talked about how they were going to get booed and spit on while marching in the parade. On May 4, the UICRs drew chalk drawings, and students poured water on them.

Later on, the University of Iowa released a statement and updated chalk policy to reflect a change in the state Board of Regents policy manual to protect free speech on campus.

I understand conservatives not speaking up due to fear of mistreatment. The hate stems from people making assumptions about conservative without hearing us out. Instead, we should be asked about our beliefs rather than just people making assumptions.

Despite many generalizations such as Republicans being called ableists, Im pro-life because I think its heartbreaking so many others with disabilities are denied a chance at life because of abortion.

While conservatives may be the minority political party on campus, we shouldnt be stereotyped without asking our beliefs first. Conservatives on campus shouldnt be afraid to speak about their beliefs because theyre worried people will make assumptions about us such as being homophobic.

Liberals and conservatives need to contribute to diversity of speech. Liberals need to become more open-minded and accepting of conservatives, and Republicans on campus need to start speaking up.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Read more:

Opinion | It's up to all of us to increase political freedom of speech on campus - UI The Daily Iowan

On Memorial Day thousands of Greenwich residents woke up to find American Flags in front of their houses. Attached to the flags were 9 x 6 postcards explaining the flag was a gift from the Metalios Group, part of Houlihan Lawrence.

Instructions on the card said those who wanted the flag picked up the following weekend could scan the QR code on the card and either either email or call the Metalios Group to schedule a pickup.

A good many people were happy for the gift and didnt give it a second thought, but the towns Zoning Enforcement Officer Jodi Couture saw more than a free flag.

I would not consider a flag to be a sign, but once they put the flyer on it I would. I would say that these were a violation of the sign regulations.

The Town has strict rules about commercial signs, most notably house for sale signs. Mr. Couture has said that although many people are under the impression that real estate for sale signs are not allowed, it is permissible to post a three-ft square sign that simply says For Sale and a phone number.

However, once logos or company names are added, that is considered an advertisement and therefore a violation.

The Re-Imagine Greenwich committee has discussed hanging informational banners from the lamp posts on Greenwich Avenue, but stopped short of including sponsor names on the banners. Previously, there was some controversy in 2019 when the Think Greenwich PR campaign sold banners to businesses.

They noted that as soon as a sponsor name goes on the informational banner it is considered a commercial sign and not allowed. Instead that committee is considering distributing stickers to businesses to put in their store windows to indicate their sponsorship.

In the past few weeks there have been conversations and newspaper headlines about signs and free speech.

Signs saying Stand up Greenwich and Ban Critical Race Theory were installed anonymously and allowed by the Town to stay in place, though many have vanished.

It is worth noting that campaign signs are protected. The Town does not regulate election signage.

Also, non profit lawn signs are sometimes approved by the First Selectmans office. In those instances, the signs must be up no more than 15 days before an event, and be removed within 24 hours afterward. The Highway department has taken signs down in the past if they impede sight lines.

Mr. Couture has said that commercial signs are not permitted and will be removed if seen or reported.

Joy Metalios responded to a request for comment saying she had had received an overwhelming positive response to the American flags.

She pointed to a thread on Next Door about the flags that got 600 Likes and many messages of gratitude.

Metalios said that 2021 was the fifth year she has distributed flags, though she skipped 2020 due to the pandemic.

She said that over the years she had increased the flag distribution from 1,500 flags to 4,000 in response to positive feedback.

She added that every year her team gives a sizable donation to the non profit organization Homes for our Troops,' though she did not indicate the amount. According to their website, the mission of Homes for Our Troops is to build and donate specially adapted custom homes for severely injured post-9/11 Veterans.

While there were many messages of appreciation, others were offended.

Anne Eddy said, The flag was appreciated; the oversized postcard was not. Like many of us, I have a father, grandfather, aunts, uncles, and friends who fought or lost their lives in battle. They gave honorably, humbly and anonymously.

Tom McGarrity said he could absolutely see how people would appreciate the gesture of a gifted flag on Memorial Day.

Thats not the issue, he said. The issue is using Memorial Day to grow your business.

McGarrity said if the Metalios Group was truly being altruistic, they should not have attached their name to the flags and donated all proceeds they might make through home sales commissions to an appropriate cause for veterans.

It stretches credulity to think that the Metalios Group was not thinking about growing their business through this initiative, he said.

McGarrity said he complained to The Metalios Group after he spotted a flag and postcard in front of his house, writing to them, saying, I think it is completely inappropriate to use Memorial Daya day to commemorate our fallen soldiersas an advertising gimmick for your business. If you really wanted to be generous on this holiday, you would have made a donation without any recognition. Please come and remove the flag you put at our mailbox.

Metalios explained the reason the cards with the Metalios Group contact information was attached to the flags. She said two years ago she met withthe Riverside Association to discuss picking up the flags for those who did not know how to dispose of them.

There was also discussion about the flags starting to touch the ground over time, she said. We went around and picked up the flags, but then residents were displeased as theywanted to keep their flag. This is why this year we printed thecard to say out of respect for the flag, we would have a volunteer pick it up for them the following weekend if they wanted us to. It is not to get the homeowners information. We understand the significance of a fallen flag, so next year we will be sure to also add an additional note on the card: We ask that you please bring your flag inside so it does not fall on the ground, to ensure we honor and respect our American flag, soldiers, and country.'

Indeed, the US Dept of Veterans Affairs notes that Public Law 94-344, known as the Federal Flag Code, says, One should never let the flag touch anything beneath it: ground, floor, water, merchandise. Never fasten or display it in a way that will permit it to be damaged or soiled. Never use the flag for advertising or promotion purposes or print it on paper napkins, boxes or anything else intended for temporary use and discard.

Ms Metalios said she had added a logo to the post cards at the request of the Board of Realtors.

A few years back, we were notified by the Greenwich Board of Realtors that the card needed to have not only the name of my team but the name of my brokerage, which is why it is all on the card I preferred to keep it more low key.

On Friday, Mr. Couture, the towns Zoning Enforcement Officer, commented in an email saying, I would not consider a flag to be a sign, but once they put the flyer on it I would. I would say that these were a violation of the sign regulations.

Dean Gamanos, Vice Commander of American Legion Post 29, said veterans abide by the protocols for display of the American flag.

We should love our neighbors and always show respect for other people, Gamanos said. Our nationstands forthese time-honored principles. But we should also show respect for our flag, which is a symbol of our nation and its principles. Many men and women have fought and died for that symbol and what it stands for. We should respect the flag just as werespect other people and try to follow guidelines for its use.

Encouraging the display of our flags is of course commendable, but also creatinga situation which allows our flag to be littered about and used for commercial gain is abhorrent, Gamanos added.

Ms Metalios said that out of 4,000 flags, she only received two calls two calls from residents who felt the flag was used as an advertisement.

I have immense respect for those who serve orwho have served ourcountry, she said. My niece is a graduate of theNaval Academy and is presently a JAG officer and my husbands uncle is a retired Colonel.

I see it as a way to raise awareness for a good cause, she continued. It saddens me that they think it is a way to capture addresses. If we wanted their names and addresses, we would simply look at their tax cards. And as far as capturing emails, we only send emails to those who opt in toour newsletter.

See the article here:

Clarifying Confusion in Greenwich on Illegal Signs and Protected Free Speech - Greenwich Free Press

Recently Michelle Donelan, minister of state for universities, went on BBC Radio 4 to discuss the governments new and much vaunted higher education (freedom of speech) bill.

According to the accompanying press release, the bill would bring in new measures that will require universities and colleges registered with the Office for Students to defend free speech and help stamp out unlawful silencing.

If passed, the bill would entail fines for universities and compensation for speakers if events were cancelled, thereby essentially bringing an end to the no platform tactic.

When questioned about how this would apply to an issue like denying the Holocaust, Donelan responded: A lot of the things we would be standing up for would be hugely offensive, would be hugely hurtful, and seemed to confirm that the proposed law would indeed protect Holocaust deniers.

This has raised the shocking prospect that antisemites and notorious Holocaust deniers, such as disgraced historian David Irving and former British National Party leader Nick Griffin, could receive compensation if they were invited to speak at a university campus and the event was subsequently cancelled.

Since Donelans interview, reassurances have been offered and there has been talk of some sort of exemption in the policy for Holocaust denial. In a later tweet thread, Donelan clarified that antisemitism is abhorrent and will not be tolerated at our universities and that the bill would only protect and promote lawful free speech.

This is not helpful, as Holocaust denial remains legal in the UK. Her comments failed to clarify the seeming contradiction between the governments stated aim of cracking down on antisemitism on campuses, while also introducing a bill which could force universities to platform Holocaust deniers.

This row exemplifies the sort of lazy thinking that is so prevalent in the ongoing free-speech debate. If an exemption for denial is forthcoming, it actually raises more questions than it answers. Would there also be exemptions that allow for the no-platforming of race pseudo-scientists or pro-eugenics speakers? What about far-right or Islamist extremists whose speech does not reach the criminal threshold?

You cannot exempt one form of legal hate speech and not others otherwise what is the point of this bill? The government needs to either take an absolutist position on free speech, or accept that this is an extremely complex issue that requires much more rigorous thinking than has gone into this bill so far.

Similarly muddled thinking has gone into this issue in relation to the long-delayed, but very welcome, newdraft online safety bill, which was published by the government recently.

Oliver Dowden, secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, said inThe Telegraph: The last thing we want is for users or journalists to be silenced on the whims of a tech CEO or woke campaigners. This sounds all well and good, but what is a woke campaigner and who is classed as a journalist?

The crux of the issue is that free speech has become a battleground in an ongoing culture war. The result of this lazy opportunism is that the governments attempts to score points could unintentionally result in a defence of Holocaust deniers and far-right extremists.

The most recognisable far-right figure in the UK, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [aka Tommy Robinson], has long self-defined as a journalist, as does a far-right collective of so-called migrant hunters that film asylum seekers and migrants on the south coast. Will they be protected in a bill designed to reduce online harms?

The debate around the borders of free speech is an extremely complex one, with possibly huge ramifications if handled badly. The governments sloppy missteps of late are part of a wider laziness that pollutes this whole debate. It is extremely worrying that the politicised and reductionist arguments that have long been maliciously used by the far right to try to renormalise their prejudiced opinions are now being echoed by government ministers and legislation.

One of the major issues that many fail to grasp is the difference between our right to say what we want (a right we have) with the desire to say this wherever we choose. These are not the same thing and should not be confused. Nonetheless, the two continue to be conflated by those who oppose de-platforming online or no-platforming at universities.

Even more important is the myopic understanding of free speech that is so prevalent in these discussions. This current debate has no relationship to the quality or value of the speech people demand should be heard, when and where they demand. So many, including the government it seems, wrongly assume that diversity of opinion always leads to attainment of truth and that the correct argument will always win if debated.

It would be wonderful if true, but this optimism ignores the possibility that ill-informed opinions, or outright lies like Holocaust denial and race science, will flood the debate and that he who shouts the loudest will end up drowning out others. At worst, debates can become inundated with proven falsities, which risk legitimising topics that objectively are not legitimate. Just debating the Holocaust makes it a debate when it is not.

In addition, those condemning the supposed clampdown on free speech fundamentally underestimate the potential for social inequalities to be reflected in public debate, seemingly ignorant to the nature and extent of these inequalities in the marketplace of ideas.

As such, the position of these free speech advocates is paradoxical. They claim to be committed to valuing free speech above other values, while propagating an unequal debate that further undermines the free speech of those who are already harmed by social inequalities. What about the rights and free speech of Jewish students if their universities are forced to platform Holocaust deniers?

So much of this is based on the incorrect notion that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the truth will out. The Holocaust ended 76 years ago. It is one of the most documented historical events ever recorded, yet people still deny it. How will inviting deniers onto campuses help?

Those who argue for this position have yet to explain how nearly a century of sunlight on fascism and Holocaust denial has yet to disinfect them, and it begs the question how many more people have to die in terrorist attacks and genocides until someone finally manages to comprehensively debate them out of existence.

Free speech is a hugely important right that we must protect, but it is also a complex issue that demands serious thinking and nuance, not point scoring and slogans. The government needs to remember that before it introduces legislation that could seriously benefit far-right extremists.

Originally posted here:

Lazy Thinking in the Free Speech Debate Could Be Exploited by Extremists - Politics.co.uk

Freedom of expression wins strong endorsements around the world when people are asked, say researchers, so why have protections for speech consistently slipped for over a decade? Part of the problem is that many of those surveyed embrace a convenient attitude toward the issue: they support protections for speech of which they approve, but not of speech that offends them. Unfortunately, a right you're willing to extend only to yourself and your allies is no right at all and leaves freedom available only to those who wield power.

"Support for free speech is generally expressed by great majorities in all countries when people are asked their opinion," finds Who Cares About Free Speech?, a report recently published by Danish think tank Justitia, Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression, and Aarhus University's Department of Political Science. In February of this year, researchers surveyed an average of 1,500 respondents each in 33 countries to come up with that seemingly encouraging result. The devil is in the details, though.

"While citizens in most countries think that criticism of the government should be allowed, many people are unwilling to allow statements that are critical or insulting of particular groups, their religion, or the nation," the authors add. "Moreover, citizens do not always prioritize free speech when there is a potential trade-off with other things they value, such as national security, good health, and the economy."

Some of these exceptions are stark. Majorities in 14 countries say that governments should be able to prevent people from making "statements that are offensive to your religion and beliefs." Most of the countries on that list aren't a shock; is anybody surprised to discover that majorities in Egypt, Russia, and Turkey think that free speech protections shouldn't extend to criticism of their own ideas? But Brazil is on that list, too. And even Germans are divided, with 47 percent agreeing that governments should be able to muzzle expression they find offensive.

Germany is similarly divided when it comes to insults to the national flag, with 48 percent supporting government restrictionsthe same share as in Australia. But 56 percent in France agree, placing that country among the 21 countries where majorities say that governments should be able to prevent people from insulting the national symbol.

Germans and Australians, along with Britons, rank among the majorities in 22 countries who think that governments should be able to prevent people from saying things that are offensive to minorities. (Germany, by the way, is the birthplace of a new wave of Internet "hate speech" censorship laws sweeping the world.)

Majorities in Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, and Tunisia say that governments should be able to prevent people from making statements in support of homosexual relationships.

Majorities in 19 countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, say that government should be able to prevent media organizations from publishing information about "sensitive issues related to national security." Will we have to just take officialdom's word for it that suppressed articles were national security-related? The survey doesn't say.

Given the exceptions that many people carve out in their generic endorsement of free speech, and that "public opinion about free speech (popular demand) tends to go hand-in-hand with the actual enjoyment of this right (government supply)" according to the survey, the consequences are no surprise.

"Global freedom of expression is in decline, now at its lowest for a decade" according to the 2019/2020 report from Article 19, a British organization named after the portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addressing free speech protections. "More than half of the world's population around 3.9 billion people live in countries rated in crisis."

The slide has been accelerated by the worsening condition for liberty in countries with large populations, including Bangladesh, China, India, Russia, and Turkey.

People suffering creeping censorship may gain new appreciation for shrinking liberty. Among the top ranked countries in Justitia's Free Speech Index are Hungary and Venezuela. They rank well not because of their protections for citizens' rightsHungary has an elected but increasingly illiberal government while the totalitarianism of Venezuela's socialist regime is limited only by its decaying resourcesbut because their residents voice strong support in the survey for the freedoms they're losing.

Offering some comfort is that Americans are also highly ranked, at third place after only Norway and Denmark. Even on the contentious issue of social media, 29 percent of Americans say there should be no regulation, while 37 percent say any regulation should be done only by the social media companies themselves; only 34 percent want to government to play even a shared role in social media regulation.

On the other hand, 43 percent of Americans say their ability to speak freely about political matters in this country has worsened in the past 12 months, compared to 17 percent who think it has improved (40 percent say it is unchanged). That may foreshadow a long-term shift, since, as other researchers have found, younger Americans are less supportive of free speech. The consequences can be seen, in part, in the erosion of the ACLU as a civil liberties advocate, as younger staffers push it away from its traditional emphasis on freedom of expression.

Variance in support for free speech extends beyond age differences. "In the US, young people, women, the less educated, and Biden voters are generally more restrictive regarding free speech," notes Who Cares About Free Speech? That said, while the strength of support varies in the U.S., majorities of men and women alike, and across ages, education levels, and partisan affiliations, still favor free speech.

Free speech isn't the only quality of free societies eroding in recent years.

"[D]emocracy has not been in robust health for some time," The Economist's Democracy Index 2020 observed earlier this year. "In 2020 its strength was further tested by the outbreak of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic Across the world in 2020, citizens experienced the biggest rollback of individual freedoms ever undertaken by governments during peacetime (and perhaps even in wartime).

Other sources report similar erosion of liberal democratic norms, accelerated by government power-grabs during the pandemic. Now we can add free speech to the mix, with populations in some places skeptical of core protections for expression. Government officials surprise nobody when they reach for expanded power; defeating them and reasserting fundamental freedoms will be difficult without popular support.

Link:

The World Loves Free SpeechExcept When They're Offended - Reason

Or new Journal of Free Speech Law is faculty-edited, but we'd love to have help from students with proofreading and bluebooking. (We may also need some help with cite-checking, though so far we're having faculty have their own research assistants do that.) We publish both electronically and in print, and our first articles should be out in late July.

I've lined up several UCLA law students for this, but I'd be glad to include others as well. In particular, we're going to need at least one person who can proofread an article in the next couple of weeks, and several who can help with our symposium articles (which are on regulations of social media platforms) in early July.

As you might gather from the job description, one thing we need is attention to detail. If your mind just absorbs information from written text, and doesn't bother you by alerting you to typos, then this will be a frustrating task for you. On the other hand, if errors just jump off the page at you as you read, you'd be perfect.

I realize that this is not like a normal law review: It will likely involve both less work and less responsibility. On the other hand, you'll get to read what we hope will be very interesting scholarship, participate in the process of publishing it (plus see your name in print on the masthead), and further practice your proofreading skills. If you're interested, please e-mail me atvolokh@law.ucla.edu. (Just to be clear, as with other law reviews, we're looking for volunteers, though we hope that the students who participate will find this professionally valuable.)

Continued here:

Law Students: Interested in Helping With Proofreading on the Journal of Free Speech Law? - Reason

The allegation that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are conspiring to silence conservatisms leading voices and delegitimize conservative points of view is well-founded but not surprising. Long before the internet the political right was regularly de-platformed by the left-leaning titans of print and broadcasting,editorial boards and journalists consistently promoted Democrat politicians and progressive agendas. Long before people were logging on to get their news, almost every major network and newspaper could be counted on to either tear down conservative Republicans or ignore them.

So former President Donald Trumps recently decreed two-year ban from Facebook, added to his bans on Twitter and YouTube, are just overt reminders of that longstanding bias. What makes it especially painful, however, is that conservatives for a time thought the wilds of the internet might at last allow them to break free from elitist censorship. They didnt reckon on virtual monopolies being run by billionaire progressives.

Liberals, who in the not-so-distant past championed free speech (speaking truth to power) have now become enthusiastic supporters of censorship. While the ability to quash dissenting views is especially delicious for liberals when they are in power, as they are now, they have also mustered the timeless power of the mob to quell the opposition in all political seasons. The cancel culture is now the censorship tool of the left.

In every profession conservatives bite their tongues while inane wokeness is forced upon them, afraid that an unacceptable comment or post, or even supporting a conservative candidate, might cost them their careers. While the billionaire class parrots progressive notions and ignores communist oppression, thereby solidifying lucrative political connections, owners of small businesses dare not speak out about endemic crime in their communities in fear they will be targets of demonstrations or worse. My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, a vocal Trump supporter, is fighting to keep his company going because so many retailers have cancelled orders for his products. Those retailers live in fear of woke boycotts and so shy away from controversy. Being called a racist today is akin to being called a witch in the 1600s the louder the denial, the louder the calls for fire.

Lists of prominent persons who have been suspended or banned from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube reveal the anti-conservative bias, which gathered momentum before and after the 2020 election. That bias is bad enough when it kills controversial opinions, as when Fox News contributor Candace Owens was suspended from Facebook for criticizing Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmers draconian COVID lockdown orders. It is deadly when it kills legitimate scientific debate. Two examples of the latter are noteworthy.

Donald Trump Jr., son of the former president, had his Facebook account suspended in 2020 because he stated that Hydroxychloroquine could help patients recover from Covid-19. There is increasing evidence that the commonly used anti-inflammatory does in fact have a significant impact on the severity and duration of the disease if given early and in the proper dose, but the drug was demonized because President Trump was an early advocate. One virologist recently estimated it could have saved over a hundred thousand lives in the US.

Then there is the case of Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, banished after she published a link to a paper suggesting that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese government lab. We now know, through US intelligence and scientific sources, that a lab leak of a manipulated virus is a very likely scenario. Big Tech has big plans in China, and little reason to risk the ire of the Chinese communists by questioning their bat theory.

Why the unwillingness of the left to allow their agenda to compete in the marketplace of ideas? The answer is obvious their ideas are foolish at best (see New Monetary Theory) and at worst they are dangerous to the unity of the nation (see Critical Race Theory). The people who promote the progressive agenda know they must act fast before their illusions are revealed by the harsh light of reality. Their love of censorship is a sign of their own fears and the bankruptcy of their ideas.

Martin Fey is a member of the Quiet Corner Tea Party Patriots.

See the article here:

View from the right: social media and their left-leaning leaders attack free speech - Norwich Bulletin

The government of IndianPrime MinisterNarendra Modiis in a battle withU.S.tech firms over a new set ofonlinespeech rulesthatit has enactedfor the nationofnearly1.4billion.

The rulesrequire companies to restrict a range of topicson theirservices,comply withgovernment takedown orders andidentifythe original source of informationshared.If the companiesfail tocomply, tech firm employees can be held criminally liable.

The escalation of tensions between Modis government and tech firms, activists say, could result inthecurtailmentof Indians online speech.

Absent a change in direction, the future of free speech in the worlds largest democracy is increasingly imperiled, said Samir Jain, director of policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a digital rights advocacy group.

Users will have less freedom of expression and less access to news and entertainment that is unapproved by the government. The rules will thereby undermine Indian democracy,Jain toldVOA.

At the center of the battle is Twitter, which asked for a three-month extensiontocomply withthenew IT rules that went into effect May 25.

On May 24, New Delhi policeattemptedto deliver a noticeto Twitters office, which was closedat the time,andthenreleased a video ofofficers entering the building and searching the officeson localTV channels.

In a tweetdays later, Twitter said itwas concerned by recent events regarding our employees in India and the potential threat to freedom of expression for the people we serve.

We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global terms of service, as well as with core elements of the new IT rules,thecompanysaid.

Earlier this month,the government sent a letter to Twitter sayingit was giving the companyone final notice adding that if Twitter fails to comply, there will be unintended consequences, according to NPR, which obtained the letter.

It is beyond belief that Twitter Inc.hasdoggedlyrefused to create mechanisms that will enable the people of India to resolve their issues on the platform in a timely and transparentmanner and through fair processes by India based clearly identified resources, the letter said.

The Indian government is pushing back on criticism that its new rules restrict online speech.

Protecting free speech in India is not the prerogative of only a private, for-profit, foreign entity like Twitter, but it is the commitment of the worlds largest democracy and its robust institutions, Indias Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said in a statement.

Some who are critical of the governments new IT rules are also skeptical of the tech industrys response.

It isnot an existential crisis as everyone will have us believe, saidMishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of Indias Software Freedom Law Center.Choudhary saiduserswill beforcedto stayon the sidelines, rather than taking an active role in discussions about their basic rights.

Some of the companies are still playing the game of we are a sales officeor our servers are in California, frustrating anyone who comes to their legitimate defense as well,Choudharysaid.

India has a long tradition of free speech,and itstech savvy market is attractive for U.S. tech firmslooking to expand.Although the Indian constitution protects certainrights tofreedom ofspeech,it has restrictions.Expressions are bannedthat threatenthe sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Even before the recent tensions between tech firms and the government, India was among the top nations in the worldseekingto restrict online speech.From Jan. 1, 2020,to June 1, 2020, India wasone ofthe top five countriesaskingTwitterto remove content.

For example, afterviolent protestson Jan. 26thinvolving farmersunhappy with new agricultural laws,the Modi government demandedTwitter block 500 accounts, includingthose ofjournalists,activistsand opposition leaders. Twitter didso, and then eventually reversedcourse only to receiveanoncompliancenotice,according to acompanystatement.

Several Indian journalistsfaced charges of sedition over their reporting and online posts following the protest by farmers.Among them is theexecutiveeditor of theCaravan magazine, Vinod K. Joseand although his Twitter handle iscurrently active, itwas withheld in India this year.

The government isalsoparticularly sensitive about criticism of its handling of the coronavirus, asking that social media firms remove mention of the B.1617 variant as the Indian variant. In May,the government ordered social media firms to remove any mention of the Indian variant. The variant first reported in India is now called Delta, according to the World Health Organization.

Earlier this month, Twittercomplied witha request from the government to block theTwitter account of Punjabi-born Jaswinder Singh Bains, aliasJazzyB, a rapper.While Twitter informed him that he had been blocked forreportedly violatingIndias Information Technology Act, he said he believes he was blocked for supporting the farmers in their protests, according to media reports.

JasonPielemeier,director of policy and strategy at theGlobal Network Initiative, an alliance of tech companies supporting freedom of expression online,wroteto the MeitY, calling attention to many issues with the new rules.

Each of these concerns on its own can negatively impact freedom of expression and privacy in India, he wrote. Together, they create significant risk of undermining digital rights and trust in Indias regulatory approach to the digital ecosystem.

Twitterisntthe only tech firm affected by new laws.WhatsApp,the encrypted messaging appowned by Facebook,filed a lawsuitin Mayagainst the Indian governmentarguing that the new rules allow for mass surveillance.According to the lawsuit,the new rules areillegal andseverely undermine the right to privacyof its users.

At issue forWhatsAppis that under the new rules, encryption would have to be removed, and according to The Guardian, messages would have to be in atraceabledatabase.

Go here to see the original:

Indian Government in Standoff with Twitter Over Online Speech - Voice of America

The UK is ruled by a government that struggles with reality. Whether the consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland, the implications of a herd immunity policy for a coronavirus-type pandemic, or the result of building a coal mine in response to the climate emergency, Johnsons government is constitutionally incapable of making its rhetoric line up with the real world. But, while these other examples may be more harmful in the long-term, the most absurd example of this Conservative governments obtuseness might its inability to wrap its head around the universality of rights like freedom of speech.

When Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, discovered on Tuesday that Magdalen College Oxfords MCR the student body representing its graduate students had voted to take down a print of the Queen from their common room, his response was not to shrug and say that students can decorate their common spaces in any way they see fit. Instead, he tweeted an outraged statement, criticising the decision as absurd, and praising the Queen as a symbol of what is best about the UK.

For those of us aware that the Education Secretarys rants on freedom of speech are arrant nonsense, it is easy to dismiss him as a tragic joke, Frank Spencer from Some Mothers Do Have Em incarnated and elevated to an unjustifiably high office of state. The interior design choices of a student body even one at as illustrious an institution as Magdalen College should never spark a response from one of the most senior politicians in the UK. It is equally easy to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup, with right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and Daily Express splashing the controversy over their front pages in a desperate attempt to spark yet another battle in the culture war.

But we should not forget the more serious implications that such an attitude towards free speech, as well as towards other rights and liberties, can have, especially on those who are particularly vulnerable to abuses of state power, such as refugees and asylum seekers. One such group are those asylum seekers kept at Napier Barracks, which was controversially repurposed as accommodation for them by the Home Office last autumn.

Even though Public Health England warned the Home Office that the conditions would be unsafe given the pandemic, it forced refugees into overcrowded dormitories, with almost four hundred residents, at one point, living at the facility, while reports of inadequate food, hunger strikes, and substandard hygiene continued to leak out. For the Home Office to ever house refugees in overcrowded, unsanitary barracks is distressing. For it to choose to do so in the middle of a pandemic is callous and negligent.

Inevitably, the High Court ruled last week that housing migrants in such squalid conditions was irrational, and that the Home Office had unlawfully failed to ensure a standard of living which was adequate for the health of the claimants. But despite this criticism from the Court, the Home Office has simply interfered further with the residents rights, with its contractors allegedly forbidding them from speaking to the media about living conditions in the barracks, and warning them that if they do so, it may harm their chances of being granted asylum.

It is a tragic irony that as the UK is welcoming Hong-Kongers to its shores, offering visas to those at risk of persecution from the Chinese government for speaking out against Xi Jinpings authoritarian regime, it is simultaneously attacking the freedom of speech of those hailing from less desirable countries. If freedom of speech means anything, it must include the right to criticise the government even if it is the government that you are simultaneously asking to grant you refuge.

More harmful, however, than this petty intimidation of refugees many of who, given their precarious position, will be deterred from speaking about their living conditions is the refusal of the government to effectively engage with the decision of the High Court. Rather than admitting the barracks are unfit for purpose, closing them, and rehousing the refugees and asylum seekers in safe accommodation, the Home Office has continued to use the barracks with little apparent improvement in conditions. Minnie Rahman, campaigns director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants told the Financial Times yesterday that residents are still being housed in dorms of 14contravening public health advice, and that sanitation at the camp remains poor.

Nor does the reaction of Priti Patel in the House of Commons earlier this week suggest that this situation is likely to improve. Addressing the chamber, she refused to apologise for re-purposing the barracks in the face of warnings from PHE, and instead implicitly suggested that the asylum seekers should be grateful for what they received, giving accommodation to people who otherwise would have been sleeping in dirty makeshift tents in France and other European countries.

Setting aside the inexplicable, yet inevitable, British exceptionalism in her statement, rights are not contingent on a persons past living conditions, nor are they contingent on what passes muster in other nations. The Home Office had an ethical and more importantly now has a legal obligation to remedy the living conditions. Instead, the Home Secretary is doggedly denying the only rational conclusion, which is that the barracks must be closed, and is instead trying to shift the narrative through criticising the media for glamourising migrants crossing the Channel and encouraging the police to get back to zapping criminals.

Rights and liberties are universal. Just as a college MCR is free to put up a picture of the Queen for any reason, so it is equally free to take it down. The fact that some may view their reasons as feeble in Magdalen MCRs case, because the Queen is apparently a symbol of colonial oppression does not justify the government wading into student politics, or mean that senior fellows at the college should be required to profess loyalty to the monarch. And much as students at the University of Oxford have the right to speak out against the Queen, or the institution of monarchy, or the government, so too do asylum seekers, even as they seek refuge on British shores from persecution and oppression in their mother country. Indeed, it is because of freedoms like this that refugees risk life and limb to find safe harbour in the UK. If the government had any decency, it would celebrate such freedoms. Instead, it degrades them.

Read the original here:

Free speech and the culture wars The Justice Gap - thejusticegap.com