WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A free-speech group on Tuesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account, arguing the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York and joined by seven individual Twitter users, claims Trump blocked a number of accounts whose owners replied to his tweets with comments that criticized, mocked or disagreed with the president.

Trump's blocking of the accounts amounted to an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Because Trump frequently turns to Twitter to make policy statements, his account qualifies as a public forum from which the government cannot exclude people on the basis of their views, according to the lawsuit. Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last month White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States."

The suit names Spicer and Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, as defendants in addition to Trump. It asks for the blocking to be deemed unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to require the president to unblock users.

The complaint follows a letter from the Knight Institute to Trump last month warning it would sue if users were not unblocked.

"Everyone being able to see the president's tweets feels vital to democracy," Joseph Papp, one of the seven Twitter users involved in the suit, said in a statement.

Papp, an author, said he had been a registered Republican for 10 years and did not join the suit for political reasons, but that he "felt a deep sense of unease" when he was blocked.

Trump's Twitter use has drawn intense interest for his unvarnished commentary about his agenda and attacks on critics. His tweets often lead to tens of thousands of retweets and comments and can shape the news.

The Knight Institute's arguments may have merit, independent free speech and internet law scholars say, in part because Trump's tweets are used to announce policy decisions or can influence legislation. Previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook may bolster its case.

The federal suit, case number 1:17-cv-05205, was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Editing by Bill Rigby and Jeffrey Benkoe

More:

US free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users - Reuters

Its a classic Internet argument.

This is a danger to free speech!

No, its not! The government isnt shutting anyone up!

Ive got good news. Both can be right. There are plenty of things that endanger free-wheeling and robust speech without the government getting involved at all. A helpful way to think about it is the First Amendments protections are a suggestion for the least a free society should do to protect and foster free speech, not an accomplishment for which we should engage in vigorous back-patting.

This is the crux of an argument one of my colleagues, Kirsten Powers, is having with seemingly the entire Internet.

In the late-night hours of July 4, CNN published a story about the Reddit user who created a video suddenly infamous for being tweeted by the president of the United States. We live in strange times, so this Redditors meme was a video of President Donald Trump beating down a wrestling opponent with a CNN logo superimposed over his face.

Andrew Kaczynski, a reporter who made his name digging up long-forgotten, newsworthy videos of prominent politicians, used those same Internet sleuthing skills to track down the user who made the meme. We live in strange times, so the subject of this national news storys handle was HanA**holeSolo, and his real name was not included in the story.

Here is the passage that addressed that decision, which set off alarm bells in many quarters of the Internet, uniting left and right for a brief moment on this Independence Day in their chorus of WUTs.

CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of this change.

It seemed to imply that HanA**holeSolos name was being withheld only because he agreed to stop engaging in speech the reporter or CNN didnt like, and should his behavior change, this mercy could be removed.I am employed by CNN, but dont speak for them. Kaczynski said the passage was only meant to communicate he had made no deal with the Redditor to withhold his name, and CNN backed him up.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false, the network said in the statement. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year-old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the users identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

But the whole affair raises a question about how we treat Internet trolls, when we out them, and at what cost. Powers has been in verbal fisticuffs over this question with honest interlocutors and abusive trolls alike for days.

Like Powers, I embrace the term speech nut. Like Powers, I wrote a book on dangers to free speech. But I disagree with her on this issue precisely because I care about free speech, not because I care about HanA**holeSolo in particular. Powers argues:

This mans speech was completely free of any restrictions. What his defenders are objecting to is him being accountable for what he wrote and posted. Holding a person accountable for what they say is not a violation of their free speech, unless the entity doing it is the government.

There are consequences to our speech. If a person wants to be in good standing in society, then they perhaps should not post racist garbage on the Internet for fun.

HanA**holeSolo isnt some great modern-day pamphleteer whom we should ensure at all costs can keep delivering us (and the president) hot memes from his den of racist sh*tposters. Hes not, and the fact that the White House finds inspiration in these corners of the Internet is newsworthy. Some of his other creations, including a a composite with Stars of David next to the Jewish CNN employees, are truly disgusting.

But media should be very careful about when they expose private citizens for the sin of political speech. They should be especially careful not to imply that content of political speech that crosses a big media entity is the reason for exposure. The media dont owe every troll on the Internet his or her anonymity, but doing disproportionate warfare with them can endanger and chill the speech of others.

As Voxs German Lopez put it simply, The Internet is not proportional.

The problem here is that the internet is not proportional. People wouldnt merely react to this guy making some offensive remarks on the internet by making some offensive remarks to him. They would react as the internet has reacted before to these kinds of situations with potentially thousands of hateful messages, death threats, attempts to get him fired, and harassment not just against him but also his family. Lines would quickly be crossed.

And its not just the Internet thats not proportional. Media has shown an inability to gauge its coverage of the online speech of private citizens.

Remember the #HasJustineLanded worldwide news furor over a single tweet or the week-long news cycle about a Republican staffers private Facebook post critical of the Obama daughters? The offenses of these women shouldnt have made them subjects of worldwide infamy, but they did. I am sympathetic to good, rational people who want to engage in online discussion, but put up barriers between it and their identities.

Again to Powers:We are not obligated to protect a persons identity so they can spread and foment racial hatred. They should take the hood off and own their behavior. Their targets do not have the luxury of being anonymous, after all. So why should they?

This all started with a Wrestlemania meme, not targeting of anyone. Although HanA**holeSolos other posts were anti-Semitic and racist, the one that made him newsworthy was well within bounds of American political discourse. It wasnt a threat of violence. It wasnt incitement. It was a goofy metaphor speech nuts shouldnt want to discourage Americans from making.

As to the question of anonymity, there are plenty of reasons that luxury shouldnt be jettisoned, even though it empowers some bad people to say bad things. Im a public figure. I put my real name with what I say online. I chose this way of doing things, and many private citizens do the same in their social media lives. It can be a helpful governor of online behavior that otherwise gets very dehumanizing and nasty. Ive been subjected to plenty of it myself.

But we shouldnt hold every private citizen with a Facebook account to the standards of a pundit or politician, who chose the strictures and exposure under which they speak.

Even if you do think a Wrestlemania clip is an out-of-bounds political statement, or that HanA**holeSolo should suffer for his other speech, consider this. Our justice system, though imperfect, attempts to value the presumption of innocence. This presumption is so important to us that we let the guilty go free so we dont wrongly convict the innocent.

A similar principle should apply to a culture of free speech. We let some truly vicious trolls and bad behavior by random Internet people go unpunished so we dont catch the innocent in a net meant for miscreants. In extreme cases, like incitement and threats, they must face consequences.

But this all started with a Wrestlemania meme. Even if I dont love it, and even if it was created by a guy who literally named himself A**hole, Ill go to the mats for it.

Mary Katharine Ham is a senior writer at The Federalist.

Read the rest here:

Free Speech Sometimes Means Letting Trolls Go Unpunished - The Federalist

The court case between a current Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly member and the borough administration has reached a conclusion.

Willy Dunne, who has represented District 9 to the assembly since 2015, sued the borough in March, claiming his right to free speech was being restricted because the borough attorney told him not to publish an opinion article in local newspapers on the advice of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit representing the borough in another related lawsuit over the borough assemblys invocation policy.

Under the terms of the settlement, dated July 3, the borough will pay Dunne $10,000 to partially cover his legal fees. In exchange, the court will dismiss the case with prejudice, which prevents the parties from bringing it back to court even if new information comes out in the future, according to the settlement. Superior Court Judge Anna Moran signed the order July 10, according to court records.

The case arose because Dunne, who had sponsored an assembly ordinance to eliminate the invocation that ultimately failed, wanted to publish an opinion article providing his reasoning in local newspapers. When he submitted the piece to the boroughs legal department for review, Borough Attorney Colette Thompson conferred with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which said it did not approve of the piece. Part of the boroughs contract with the ADF, which Borough Mayor Mike Navarre signed in December 2016, said the borough agreed to cooperate with the ADF in public representation of the case.

Dunne said Thompson told him not to publish, a claim both Thompson and the attorney representing the borough in both cases, Kevin Clarkson, have since refuted.

The Defendants affirmatively deny that they ever, either directly or through any borough officials, restricted or prohibited Mr. Dunnes speech or publication of matters he wished to communicate to his constituents, fellow assembly members and other borough and state residents, the settlement states. Plaintiff Dunne does not agree.

After a hearing March 16 in which Clarkson said the borough wouldnt block Dunne publishing the piece, he did, but the ordinance he was arguing for failed at the March 21 assembly meeting anyway. At a March 22 hearing, Clarkson said the borough planned to ask for the judge to dismiss the case because the point of the suit was now moot.

On March 29, Clarkson filed the motion to dismiss, saying there was no cause for conflict. Dunnes attorney, Anchorage lawyer John McKay, filed a motion in opposition, saying there were still a number of points requiring clarification from the court, including the fact the Dunne still claimed the borough attorney initially told him not to speak the Alliance Defending Freedoms contract could be interpreted as enforceable against borough assembly members.

McKay said one of the key issues he and Dunne sought from the court was a clear ruling that this contract couldnt be used to stop assembly members from speaking about issues related to the invocation policy, either in public or in private, without approval from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Because the language of the contract is vague, it could be interpreted that way, he said.

Although McKay was glad Dunne and Navarre could agree on the settlement, he said it was frustrating that the borough waited so long to settle the case after he and Dunne had said they were willing to settle the case earlier to avoid the additional costs, appropriating an additional $25,000 for legal fees in this case in late March.

They were willing to spend more money than they had to, both for us and for their own lawyers, just to fight the fact that they could enforce this contract against borough assembly members, he said. In some ways, it didnt affect (Dunne) any more than it affected any other assembly members.

Neither Dunne nor a representative for the borough could be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawsuit over the invocation policy, titled Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, was filed Dec. 14, 2016 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska asking the court to find the borough assemblys policy setting rules for who can give an invocation before the meetings as unconstitutional. The assembly adopted the rules when a controversy arose after a woman representing the Satanic Temple gave an invocation before the meeting in August 2016.

The trial for Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough is set for the week of Feb. 26, 2018 in Anchorage.

Reach Elizabeth Earl at elizabeth.earl@peninsulaclarion.com.

See the article here:

Borough to settle Dunne free speech case - Kenai Peninsula Online

wbur Commentary (Thom/ Unsplash)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

As all the world knows by now, last week our president prepared for his big meeting with Vladimir Putin by receiving round-the-clock briefings on the history of U.S.-Russian relations, as well as the recent accords of the G-20.

Kidding!

Actually, he prepared by tweeting out a video of himself pretend-assaulting a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head.

The obvious question here is why the leader of the free world or any adult living outside his parents basement would do such a thing. But we all know who Donald Trump is at this point. Expecting him to go more than a few days without trolling is like expecting a leech to go vegetarian.

Whats been more interesting to watch is the fallout, and in particular, the way that Trumps fellowinternet trolls have descended into self-pity at the first sign of public exposure.

As one might expect, media outlets did not take kindly to Trumps tweet, and CNN soon tracked down the man who created the video and posted it on a Reddit site devoted to Trump worship.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech onlineanonymously.

Like many of the folks who hang out on such sites, the Anonymous Poster (who Ill refer to as AP, because his handle is too profane to print) has a long history of posting racist vitriol.

Here are just a few examples of what AP posted:

*A photo of the gate to a concentration camp with the caption, Solved the refugee problem in Europe.

*Photos of dozens of CNN staffers marked with Stars of David.

*A photo of a Koran being burned with the caption, Dont mind me just posting an image to offend Islam.

*Repeated uses of the N-word in posts such as, I just like dancing when n------ are getting beat down by the cops and FBI stats dont lie n-----. You hood rats account for more that [sic] 50 percent of the murder, rape, robbery, and assault in the USA.

(Fun fact: This last outburst is based on a bogus stat our president tweeted out during the campaign. Classy!)

When Trump first posted the CNN video, AP proudly crowed, Holy s---!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s---post but the MAGA EMPORER [sic] himself!!! I am honored!!

But within a day, AP had issued a long apology, claiming that he wasnt a racist and never meant any of the horrible things he posted online.

So what might explain this sudden change of heart?

Heres a hint: CNN figured out APs true identity and contacted him by email. In other words, he was afraid of being exposed.

Conservative media outlets immediately accused CNN of threatening to blackmail AP by exposing his identity. To which I would respond: nonsense.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech online anonymously.

Much of the reason the internet has become a cesspool of cruel rhetoric is because folks like AP have weaponized anonymity. They use the internet to say whatever they want without having to face the consequences. Theyve turned the information superhighway into a playground full of coward-bullies wearing masks.

Like Trump, they love to dish out abuse. And like Trump, the moment anyone tries to hold them accountable, theypitch a fit.

They also threatenchildren. Yes, a group of white supremacists responded to the CNN report on AP by posting information about CNN employees, and threatening the kids of CNN employees unless they fired the lead reporter.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate.

So thats what weve come to: Racists who threaten innocent kids online are demanding digital hoods to protect them from public disapproval. Perhaps the federal government should provide them guns and ammo, as well? Would that Make America Great Again?

We now have a president with a history of tweeting and retweeting material from white nationalist websites. He also has a long history of inciting violence against protesters, the media and other perceived enemies.

Under his watch, hate crimes have predictably surged. Journalists who work to expose the sources of hate speech routinely receive death threats from Trumps racist army all of them anonymous, naturally.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate. Forcing them to stand behind their words is the least a civilized society can do.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Steve Almond Cognoscenti contributor Steve Almond is the author of 11 books of fiction and nonfiction. He writes Cog's advice column, #HeavyMeddle, and is the co-host of Dear Sugar Radio.

More

Link:

Online Anonymity Is Not The Same Thing As Free Speech - WBUR

A Connecticut woman who hurled a variety of insults at a grocery store manager was protected by constitutional free speech rights and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Nina Baccala was arrested in her hometown of Vernon in 2013 after subjecting a Stop & Shop assistant manager to a profanity-laced tirade. Prosecutors said she became enraged when the manager told her it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer.

Baccala called the manager "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names, prosecutors said.

Baccala, 44, was convicted of breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the name calling and insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to constitutional free speech rights.

All seven justices on the state Supreme Court agreed the conviction should be overturned. Four voted in favor of acquittal, while three said there should be a new trial.

Justice Andrew McDonald wrote in the majority opinion that while the words and phrases that Baccala used were "extremely offensive and meant to personally demean" the manager, they were not criminal. He wrote that the evidence was insufficient to support Baccala's conviction under federal constitutional law.

"Uttering a cruel or offensive word is not a crime unless it would tend to provoke a reasonable person to immediately retaliate with violence," McDonald wrote.

He added, "Store managers are routinely confronted by disappointed, frustrated customers who express themselves in angry terms. People in authoritative positions of management and control are expected to diffuse hostile situations."

Prosecutor Mitchell Brody declined to comment Friday. Baccala did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Brody wrote in his opposition to the appeal that Baccala's insults were "fighting words" and that the state's breach of peace law allows prosecution for "abusive language."

The "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights dates back to a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Hampshire case. In that case, Walter Chaplinsky was convicted of breach of peace for cursing at a town marshal in Rochester, New Hampshire, and calling him a "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist."

Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was an exemption to free speech rights for "fighting words," which it defined as words "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

See the original post here:

Court: State Woman's Profanity-laced Tirade Was Protected Free Speech - Hartford Courant

On Wednesday, you may go to your favorite website and see a pop-up window that claims the site has been blocked, that its stuck in the slow lane or now requires a subscription.

Dont be alarmed: This is the internets version of a protest, and its fighting for the cyber version of free speech, commonly called net neutrality.

Then again, do be alarmed: Theres a good chance that federal regulators will dismantle the current framework that allows for net neutrality, and that theyll do so without any replacement mechanism to enforce an open internet.

People who would like to change the way we regulate the internet argue that the current method has stifled innovation since it went into effect two years ago.

That idea is hard to square with the fact that the companies participating in this weeks protest are the innovators. Some on the list include Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Vimeo and Reddit.

But heres where it gets more complex. One argument of net neutrality opponents is: If broadband internet service providers like Comcast could charge higher fees for the biggest bandwidth hogs (cough cough, Netflix; cough, Amazon), wouldnt they be able to afford to build advanced fiber networks that would spawn new types of innovation? Ill leave you to consider this idea that ISPs are too cash-poor to innovate.

Backing up a bit, net neutrality is the idea that the internet is a cyber piazza, an open forum for debate and innovation, where giants like Google, Netflix and Facebook have no inherent advantage over startups and newcomers.

Unlike actual public piazzas, the cyber forum for debate and speech is reliant on a delivery infrastructure, and that infrastructure is populated by profit-driven monopolies. ISPs built the roads that lead to the cyber piazza, and they installed giant toll booths aka monthly subscriptions. So net neutrality rules are really just rules that apply to them. The idea is that Comcast shouldnt be able to charge a higher toll for Netflix than for its own subsidiaries.

The current head of the Federal Communications Commission has said he wants to preserve net neutrality, just not in its current form. Yet the FCC plans to slash Title II, the legal foundation for net neutrality. In 2015, former President Barack Obama asked the FCC to classify ISPs as utilities that the federal government could regulate. The impending regulations barred ISPs from blocking or throttling websites, favoring certain content over others, and more.

Opponents argue that Title II is antiquated because it originated in the 1930s. Im not sure whats wrong with old laws, but I do know that a bunch of pop-up windows and shut-down websites probably isnt going to change what is a foregone conclusion at the FCC.

For it to be permanent, the road to net neutrality needs to be paved by innovators, not government. The Amazons and Googles and Facebooks need to develop and build that advanced fiber network that ISPs supposedly cant afford. They need to do what they do best: disrupt industry through innovation. The giants can put their money where their protests are, and build new networks that make ISPs obsolete.

Bureaucrats dont understand technology and government doesnt move fast enough to regulate it. These people know not what they do or say, as evidenced by our commander in chiefs weird announcement about forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit with Russia yesterday.

I think this is cluelessness, not malevolence. And the only way to fight it is through innovation.

Go here to read the rest:

Booting Up: Free speech in danger - Boston Herald

Free speech on Wisconsins college campuses has been getting a lot of attention at the state Capitol recently.

Lost amid the manufactured furor over a handful of protests of right-wing provocateurs appearing on campuses in other states and whether Wisconsin students ought to be threatened with expulsion if their activism offends older, white GOP politicians are the challenges students of color face and have faced for generations.

Right now there there are 664 African-Americans out of 31,407 undergraduates at UW-Madison. In the entire UW System, there are 4,640 African-Americans out of 151,895 undergraduate students.

Yet rather than asking why the percentage of African-American students is so alarmingly low, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, is fast-tracking a bill to create safe spaces on Wisconsin campuses for right-wing purveyors of racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

As a person of color studying at the overwhelmingly white University of Wisconsin-Madison, I believe policymakers also ought to hear my story and consider my experience, and the stories and experience of other students of color, before telling us whose voices are and arent being heard.

I am a scholar in UW-Madisons PEOPLE program, a scholarship for historically disenfranchised communities in Wisconsin. Ever since my first summer on campus in seventh grade, I have been told to be on my best behavior, lest we make white people uncomfortable with our brown voices.

As a UW-Madison student, I have been told I am only here because I am black, and in a discussion section someone even said I am an affirmative action enrollee, implying I took a more-qualified white persons seat and therefore should not speak.

It is a reality many African-American students have to live with on campus. Most African-American students never forget their first time walking into a lecture hall filled with hundreds of students and being the only black face. It is a chilling and isolating feeling. The voices of people of color on campus are often discouraged, overlooked and silenced.

The conservatives campus speech bill would make it worse. If two students feel their speech is challenged, those students could file a report and trigger a suspension or expulsion hearing. That means students of color speaking up for ourselves and making fellow white students uncomfortable could face retaliation in the form of facing suspension or expulsion.

And for extreme cases, for every protest of right-wing speakers Vos points to, I can point to a hate crime perpetrated against a student of color on a college campus. In May, Bowie State University graduate and Army Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III was stabbed to death by a person who pledged to white supremacy on social media. In 2017, colleges and universities have reported increases in white supremacy groups and hate crimes on campuses nationwide. Even at UW-Madison, a student was found recruiting for a white supremacy group.

If someone like Charles Murray comes to town promoting his academic research that alleges a black student like me is genetically inferior to my white peers, I would hope that the university to which I pay tuition and the government of the state in which I live and pay taxes would support my right to speak up and defend myself.

Vos has done nothing to fully understand why students of color have protested speakers, nor at any time has he addressed the hate crimes, inspired by these hateful ideas, that students of color have endured. Instead Vos is attempting to pass a law so that students will be suspended or expelled for speaking up for themselves.

Savion Castro is a UW-Madison student and One Wisconsin Now research associate.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Read more from the original source:

Savion Castro: The missing voices in the free speech debate ... - Madison.com

A federal judge has given Twitter permission to proceed with a First Amendment lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice over restrictions limiting how tech companies can disclose details about government surveillance requests.

Twitter sued the government in 2014 after the Justice Department barred the company from revealing the exact number of requests for user data its received from federal authorities, but the government countered by claiming disclosing that data would be detrimental to national security.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled against the governments bid for summary judgement Thursday and said its restrictions constitute a prior restraint on Twitters freedom of speech and subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the draft transparency report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict-scrutiny standard, the judge ordered.

Even where courts have hesitated to apply the highest level of scrutiny due to competing secrecy and national security concerns, they have nevertheless held that heightened or rigorous scrutiny of such restrictions on speech is required, she added.

The judge dismissed the governments argument and instead ordered the Justice Department to expedite the process of granting security clearances for Twitters attorneys so they can review any classified documents subsequently filed in Washingtons defense.

This is an important issue for anyone who believes in a strong First Amendment, and we will continue with our efforts to share our complete transparency report, Twitter said in a statement welcoming the ruling.

Existing rules allow Twitter and other tech companies to disclose the number of government surveillance requests theyve received in wide bands, such as 0-999. Twitter has argued the restrictions are unconstitutional and prevent the company from being transparent with its customers.

Read the original post:

Twitter can proceed with free speech case against DOJ, federal judge rules - Washington Times

Harvard President Drew Faust gave a ringing endorsement of free speech in her recent commencement address. There was, however, one passage where Faust asserted that the price of Harvards commitment to free speech is paid disproportionately by those students who dont fit the traditional profile of being white, male, Protestant, and upper class. That point has been illustrated by a few recent controversies over speakers whose words were deemed offensive by some members of those non-traditional groups of students. But focusing solely on those controversies, and on a handful of elite campuses, risks obscuring a larger point: Disadvantaged groups are also among the primary beneficiaries of vigorous free-speech protections.

The Department of Justice Stands by Texas's Voter ID Law

Universities have often served as springboards for progressive social movements and helped to consolidate their gains. They have been able to fulfill these functions largely by serving as spaces where ideasincluding radical and contrarian ideascould be voiced and engaged with.

Today, many universities seem to be faltering in their commitment to this ideal, and it is the vulnerable and disenfranchised who stand to lose the most as a result. Thats particularly true beyond the world of elite private universities such as Harvard. The reality is that, as compared to white Americans, blacks and Latinos are much more likely to attend public universities and community colleges than elite private institutions. The same goes with those from low-income backgrounds as compared to the wealthy. This dynamic holds with regard to faculty as well: Female professors and professors of color are more likely than their white male counterparts to end up teaching at public universities as opposed to elite institutions like Harvard.

Heres why this matters: In virtue of their heavy reliance on taxpayer funding and major donors, public colleges are much more receptive to calls from outside the university to punish faculty and staff for espousing controversial speech or ideas. Groups like Professor Watchlist, Campus Reform, or Campus Watch exploit this vulnerability, launching populist campaigns to get professors fired, or to prevent them from being hired, on the basis of something they said. The primary targets of these efforts end up being mostly women, people of color, and religious minorities (especially Muslims and the irreligious) when they too forcefully or bluntly condemn systems, institutions, policies, practices, and ideologies they view as corrupt, exploitative, oppressive, or otherwise intolerable.

Those most vulnerable to being fired for expressing controversial views are the ever-growing numbers of contingent facultywho also tend to be disproportionately women and minorities. Meanwhile, the better-insulated tenured faculty tend to be white men.

As a result, if progressives are concerned with ensuring a more representative faculty, if they are committed to protecting freedom of conscience and freedom of expression for women and minorities, then they need to be committed to protecting free speech across the board. Every attempt to censor Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopoulos makes it easier to mount a campaign to fire someone like Lisa Durden (who made controversial comments about holding an all black Memorial Day celebration that excluded whites). Progressives lose the moral high ground they would need to defend radical and provocative speechwhich is unfortunate because they are arguably the ones who need free-speech protections most.

Americans tend to be politically to the right of most university faculty and studentsand as a result the public is more likely to be shocked and offended by views expressed by progressive scholars than by academic conservatives, who are few in number, generally rather moderate politically, and usually cautious about what they say publicly. Politicians are also more likely to throw their weight behind campaigns against left-leaning scholars, given that Republicans control most state governments, and thereby the purse strings of most public universities.

And if progressive scholars face a constant threat from the right coming from off-campus, they also face a threat from the left on campus. Many of the student-led campaigns that have made national news in the last two years have targeted professors who, themselves, identify as liberal or progressivebut who managed to challenge or violate some tenet of the prevailing activist orthodoxy.

Progressives, therefore, have reason to celebrate the fact that conservatives and their allies seem to be rallying behind the cause of free speech on campus. They can take advantage of this moment to institutionalize more robust protections, clearer standards and policies, and a healthier civic culture that turns disagreements into opportunities for learning. If progressives fail to embrace free speech, and if they cede this basic American value to the right, then, as Harvards President Faust warned in her commencement address, any effort to limit some speech opens the dangerous possibility that the speech that is ultimately censored may be our own.

Read the original post:

How Free Speech on Campus Protects Disadvantaged Groups - The ... - The Atlantic

On June 7in Los Angeles, California, theNational Constitution Center hosted a program on the future of digital free speech, in partnership with the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society.

The first half of the program is a one-on-one conversation between Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosenand Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Listeners can find it right now on the Constitution Centers YouTube channel and in the coming weeks onLive at Americas Town Hall.

This week's episode ofWe the Peoplepicks up with the second half of the program, when Judge Kozinski was joined by Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, for a wide-ranging discussion.

Todays show wasedited byJason Gregoryand produced byNicandro Iannacci. Research was provided byLana UlrichandTom Donnelly. The host ofWe the PeopleisJeffrey Rosen.

Continue todays conversation onFacebookandTwitterusing@ConstitutionCtr.

We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at[emailprotected].

Sign up to receiveConstitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member ofSlatesPanoplynetwork. Check outthe full roster of podcasts atPanoply.fm.

Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is aprivate nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Recent Stories on Constitution Daily

John McCain to be awarded 2017 Liberty Medal

Trump team may go back to Supreme Court on immigration

Anticipation already begins for Courts next term

Filed Under: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Podcasts

Visit link:

Podcast: The future of digital free speech - Constitution Daily (blog)

Wisconsin Public Radio News

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech Wisconsin Public Radio News The University of Wisconsin System regents plan to vote on a resolution affirming their commitment to free speech as legislators consider a bill that would punish UW students who disrupt campus speakers. The Republican bill would require the regents to ... and more »

See the original post here:

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech - Wisconsin Public Radio News

Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white nationalist Richard Spencer speaking at Texas A&M University Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016 in College Station.

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

See more here:

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country -- but Texas' bills died in committee - Chron.com

Last week, President Trump tweeted a video of himself wrestling a man to the floor, the man's head digitally replaced with the CNN logo. CNN tracked down the Reddit user who created the video, and also asked him about other posts of his that consisted of racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic language and imagery. HanA**holeSolo, as the user is known, apologized profusely, insisted that he loves "people of all races, creeds and origins," and insisted that the video wasn't intended to incite violence against the media. The President, on the other hand, did not say "sorry." He tweeted: "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" Parties on each side of this saga could legitimately say they're taking a stand for free speech. CNN is defending the freedom of the press against a President who has sometimes appeared to threaten it. Conservatives charge CNN with being thin-skinned, but I've reported on Trump rallies where the audience has been moved to send up a chant of "CNN sucks," and where the anger at the so-called mainstream media nearly boiled over into outright intimidation. When the President of a democracy tweets a video of himself beating up a media organization, isn't that an implicit threat against the free press?

HanA**holeSolo's creation is classic Trumpery: it shows the President figuratively wrestling the media to the ground, yes, but with a dash of self-aware humor that the left is oddly tone-deaf to.

Does Trump really think he has the physique of a pro wrestler? Or that his tweets are witty ripostes worthy of Downton Abbey? No. He's a troll on a cosmic scale, and sometimes liberals would do well to ignore the one-liners he bashes out on his phone and focus on what he's doing in his day job.

So, which is it? Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? Personal experience has taught me that the line between these two things is vanishingly thin.

Down the years, I've had it all thrown at me: anti-Semitism, accusations of being a racist, homophobia, accusations of homophobia, cartoons of me in a gas oven, etc. I've said some bad things myself -- never that bad, I want to emphasize -- and feel guilty for having contributed my own small portion to this moral mudslide.

But if I might pretend to be completely innocent for a moment, then I have a couple of observations to make. One is that women always get it worst. Another is that people are happy to turn a blind eye to abuse when they agree with it politically. Liberals can give offense but they never take it lightly.

A third is that the cost of being bad online is rising. Reputations can be ruined by a nasty tweet, or even a tweet that just wasn't well phrased or was unfairly misinterpreted. Generosity is dying; it's rare to be given the benefit of the doubt. Social media is starting to become a strange mix of the abrasive and the censorious, of which the CNN wrestling story is a rather good illustration.

My sympathy, however, does lie with CNN -- for one simple reason. Online abuse is killing the appeal of public service. Any sane, ethical young person would see the ugliness of modern politics and journalism and conclude they want no part of public life. The President is encouraging that.

Horrible things have been said about Trump, true. He could argue that he's simply fighting back, yes. But fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to more fire, and while I'm sympathetic towards some of Trump's agenda, I look upon the state of politics in this era with despair. It is not unreasonable for journalists to say "enough is enough."

See more here:

Stanley: Is Trump an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? - CNN

Recently I undertook a final year undergraduate class in political philosophy. The opening lecture commenced with a trailer from1984(1984). This film adaptation of George Orwells original dystopian novel (1949) imagines a society monitored pedantically by an all-encompassing omniscient totalitarian super state (Oceania).

My lecturer subsequently discussed her upbringing in formerly USSR-controlled East Germany. East Germany was a microcosmic manifestation of Airstrip One (Britain rechristened in1984). It was a relatively small communist province managed maliciously from Russia.

What dangers can transpire when a singular overriding ideology is bequeathed an exclusive cultural and legislative precedence?

Stringent protections of free speech (the right to dissent) are an important guarantor against any potential monopoly of power. When free speech is unjustifiably curtailed, democratic societies are threatened. Enabling disparate voices to participate in political and academic life ensures that current orthodoxies become neither lackadaisical nor presumptively unequivocal. Unpopular schools of thought, strong opposition parties and a variety of editorial slants constrain intellectual egomania and unhealthy political power grabs.

Most people will acknowledge this principle to some extent. At a base level, many Republicans recognize that they need Democrats. Often, academics are more indebted to their detractors than they would care to admit. But should disparate fascist cohorts and militant Islamic groupsbe given a hearing in democratic societies? Should extremist spokespersons be allowed to benefit from the privileges which they would seek to suppress in alternative circumstances?

What if particular radical tenets exploited susceptible listeners? Surely some measure of benevolent paternalism is warranted. In practice, many developed nations do place limitations upon free speech.

Recently, Ursula Haverbeck, a prolific revisionist historian and neo-Nazi, was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust on German soil. The British government has also introduced anti-extremism legislation. Even views which were oncethemain sway of opinion merely decades ago are now mitigated against legislatively and on university campuses.

In 2016, Angus Buchan (a conservative evangelical South African evangelist) was banned from preaching in Scotland. LGBT groups cited his allegedly homophobic and misogynistic views in justification of the prohibition. Offbeat second wave feminists like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have had their invitations to universities revoked by disenfranchised students.

These measures are not only inappropriate, but fundamentally counter-productive. Furthermore, they send a dangerous message to zealous minority factions. Theprima facieobvious ought to be stated: these demarcations are purely symbolic. Everyone knows that the most efficient way to stifle reprehensible opinions merely requires not paying attention to them.

Unsurprisingly; bannings, finings and imprisonment provide frenzied radicals with much larger spheres of influence. Nothing is more ineffectual than bestowing notoriety upon fringe groups which would otherwise have never been given any platform. Attempts to curtail free speech merely ratify the grandiose outlaw status which agitators thrive upon. Outrage just adds fuel to the fire of irrational contempt.

Ifcertain views really are beyond the pale of rational discourse, there is no inherent reason for their adherents to feel any compulsion towards dialogue, compromise or self-critique. Abhorrent positions should be forced to earn their place in an economy of ideas rather than being crowned royalty in a much more lucrative, less competitive, black market.

Why then have coercive attempts to restrict hate speech become so popular? Perhaps attempts to officially proscribe certain opinions pertains to a far more raw, emotive and visceral essence. An ancient human facethas resurfaced: team psychology.

An ability to cooperate in large collectives is one of the characteristics which distinguish humanity from other primates. This remnant of our tribal ancestry is manifest almost everywhere; competitive sports; fashion; political partisanship; etc. Even whenever we are not facing any imminent danger we still sense a pressing need to express particular loyalties and make specific alliances.

However, in his infamous Ted Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (N.Y.U.) identified one precarious trait innate to team psychology: The psychology of teams [] shuts down open minded thinking.

This is tantamount to stating the obvious. But Haidts observation should provoke serious introspection. Is it possible to reasonably discard ingroup thinking and pursuethecommon good? Do attempts to officially silence various antagonistic voices actually have a predominantly self-validating function?

Our position within a specific social tribe is reinforced. We are no longer required to critically assess objectionable opinions. The immense pleasure tribalism affords us makes it difficult and painful to distinguish between advocacy and enactment. Acknowledging the practical ineffectuality of anti-free speech legislation feels like betrayal.

Notwithstanding this phycological complication, there remains an immense difference between allowing persons to vocalize positions and possessing a blaze attitude towards the manifestation of such beliefs. Mob psychology has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of populism and social polarization (e.g. identity politics) throughout many Western nations which arose after the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown. Speech regulation provides continuity in an unstable world.

However, preemptively shutting down the possibility of dialogue with others cannot provide long term social security. The War on Extremism will soon be cataloged alongside other failed social Wars (like the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs). If monitoring language is counter-productive, what posture should anti-extremist political engagement take?

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent years. The rise of cultural libertarianism (embodied by alternative media outlets like the Rubin Report) has remapped the political landscape for many millennials. Its purported free speech fundamentalism resonates amongst people alienated by consensus politics; which characterized both the 90s and Noughties. Cultural libertarianism is a flashy somewhat adolescent protest movement with plenty of uncanny insights and a remarkable lack of real solutions.

The conscientious branding which these star struck demagogues have deployed does their crusade a damning disservice. They have inadvertently capitalized upon the tribal loyalties which underlying anti-free speech regulation in the first place.

Furthermore, this movement has failed to attract much needed cross-partisan support. Left of center socially minded democrats, often disparagingly christened Social Justice Warriors, are presumptively excluded from this more open project. As Milo Yiannopoulos (a recently defamed former darling of the Cultural Libertarian troop) states; free speech is now a conservative issue.

Cultural Libertarianism is too facile. Its unwavering commitment to value facts over feelings reflects a limited awareness of the complexities inherent throughout the historical development of moral and political theory. Social liberalism has produced revolutionary free speech advocates liketheinfamous British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Without the Quran political toleration may never have got off the ground.

Yes; free speech is under threat. Democratic participation is difficult. Authentic university life is fragile. The freedom of the press is always somewhat in jeopardy. Protecting free speech involves hard work. It requires putting up with ideas we dislike and hoping that reasonable discourse will win out in the end.

Free speech advocates on the right, left, top, bottom and center should recognizethe importance ofgrey. We must stop painting ourselves and our adversaries in cheap gaudy colors. Unless we are careful, one persons utopia may become everyone elses nightmare.

Photo: John Nakamura Remy/Creative Commons

See the rest here:

Protecting truly free speech is hard work - GlobalComment.com

Jack Phillips is the operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Phillips, who has religious objections to same-sex marriage and had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips is devout about his artistry in icing and fondant. Hes also devout about his Christian faith, so much so that he believes it would be deeply sinful to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission one in a series of efforts to fence in the galloping acceptance of same-sex marriage could come as soon as this fall.

Events were set in motion in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who planned to marry in Massachusetts, stopped into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused to serve them, even though Colorado law says businesses open to the public cant discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Advertisement

Phillips, of course, has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to profess his faith. And hes made it clear theres no room for compromise, telling The New York Times: I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that to participate in a sin is wrong for me. For me to take part in it against my will is compelling me to make a statement that I dont want to make. But theres another right hanging in the balance, rooted in the 14th Amendment and codified by the Supreme Court in 2015: the right to same-sex marriage.

Historically, courts have tried to strike an equitable balance between expanded civil rights and religious expression. Since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1964, lawmakers and the courts have allowed some exemptions but have tended to draw the line when claims of religious freedom are used to justify discrimination. As James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT project put it: You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

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

The Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision two years ago was transformative, addressing vital claims to liberty and dignity for millions of gay Americans. Phillipss protest also comes at a time when national support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. A majority of Americans surveyed 62 percent now support gay marriage, including two-thirds of Catholics and 68 percent of mainline Protestants. And while white evangelical Christians arent exactly waving rainbow flags, support for same-sex marriage has grown from 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent today, according to Pew.

Theres a broader First Amendment principle at stake, however. The Phillips case is another alarming assault on freedom of speech, part of an effort by businesses large and small to turn that most essential constitutional right into an antiregulatory tool. This compelled speech doctrine is already making its way through Congress and the court system, most notably in a case involving business groups fighting a 2010 law that requires them to disclose whether their products contain minerals linked to warlords in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In June, the US House passed the Financial CHOICE Act, which includes a pro-business provision to repeal the conflict-mineral disclosure. The US Senate should reject the bill, which also rolls back Dodd-Frank reforms. And the Supreme Court justices should recognize that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not about forcing speech, but about banning discriminatory conduct. The Colorado cakemaker should be free to worship as he pleases, but not to abrogate settled civil rights law under the guise of the First Amendment.

Continue reading here:

Using 'free speech' as a cover for discrimination - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

In the wake of CNN threatening to out a critic if he does not limit his speech in the future, former federal prosecutor and First Amendment champion Ken White has published an eminently sensible post about the incoherence of the present moment's views on free speech, and on the way that partisanship causes us to apply a double standard that excuses "our bunch" and damns the "other side."

As you'd expect from White, he goes beyond the "pox on both your houses" and sets out a course for a consistent and coherent view on free speech, speech with consequences, and taking sides.

We're not consistent in our arguments about when vivid political speech speech inspires, encourages, or promotes violence. We're quicker to accept that it does when used against our team and quicker to deny it when used on the other team.

We're not consistent in our moral judgments of ugly speech either. We tend to treat it as harmless venting or trolling or truth-telling if it's on our team and as a reflection of moral evil if it's on the other team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether online abuse and threats directed at people in the news are to be taken seriously or not. We tend to downplay them when employed against the other team and treat them as true threats when used against our team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether calling some individual out by name exposes them to danger. We tend to claim it does when the person supports our team and sneer at the issue when the person supports the other team.

We're not consistent in our treatment of the significance of behavior by obscure individuals. When some obscure person's online speech gets thrust into the limelight, we tend to treat it as fairly representative if they're on the other team and an obvious non-representative outlier if they are on our team.

We're hopelessly bad at applying consistent legal principles to evaluate whether speech is legally actionable depending on which team it comes from.

We're pretty inconsistent in our assessment of what social consequences should flow from ugly speech, with our views of proportionality, decency, and charity diverging widely depending on whether the person at issue is on our team or not.

CNN, Doxing, And A Few Ways In Which We Are Full of Shit As A Political Culture [Ken White/Popehat]

Louisiana Republican congressman Clay Higgins shot video of himself talking about the need for invincible U.S. powerwhile wandering the gas chamber at Auschwitz. In his five-minute ramble, Higgins explains the horrors that took place at the camp, where some 1.1m people, mostly Jews, where murdered by the Nazis during World War II. And that this []

Described by the BBC as a stunning attack on a female news anchor as if such a thing were at all unusual for the president of the United States of America, Trumps latest twitter barrage concerns the allegedly bleeding badly facelift of MSNBCs low I.Q. Crazy Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski tweeted back, to mock Trumps famously []

Piers Morgan is a British journalist, pundit and Trumpkin who blew his big break in America and now presents breakfast television when not being nasty to women on Twitter. Here he is on Good Morning Britain getting savagely owned by copresenter Susanna Reid. This moment was just too beautiful for words, @susannareid100 @piersmorgan @CharlotteHawkns pic.twitter.com/hK2n88nBS4 []

Excel, Microsofts venerable spreadsheet program has some seriously powerful capabilities. But unless you know where to look in the maze of menus and toolbars, you probably leave the pivot tables and conditional formatting to your offices Excel guru. If you want to level up your skills and steal the title from the resident guru, take []

Entertaining bold changes in your career can feel like an abandonment of what youve worked for thus far, but this fallacious mindset can cost you a lot more in the long run than the time spent at your current gig. Change is constant, and building new skills outside of your typical wheelhouse will do much []

Immersive 3D sound is usually only possible with an array of surround-sound speakers, or by using headphones with Binaural audio content. And since most readily-available media is mastered for generic stereo, your Dolby 5.1 setup wont automagically add an extra dimension to your listening experience. But you can still simulate a rich audio environment with []

Read the rest here:

Debullshitifying the free speech debate about CNN and Trump's alt ... - Boing Boing

News & Observer

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer News & Observer Where will this country be if its speech tradition falters? In public places and social settings, when we come face to face, we're hesitant to say what we think. and more »

Follow this link:

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer - News & Observer

Jonathan Turley, Opinion Columnist Published 4:03 p.m. ET July 5, 2017 | Updated 6:14 p.m. ET July 5, 2017

CNN has been accused of blackmailing the man who created a meme of President Donald Trump tackling CNN by threatening to reveal his identity. USA TODAY

President Trumps video tweet on July 2, 2017.(Photo: Twitter, @realDonaldTrump)

CNN has reported that it has confirmed the identity of the creator of the controversial videothat shows President Trumptaking down someone with the CNN logo for a head. Like many, I was highly critical of the president for reposting the video on his Twitter account. That wasboth irresponsible and unpresidential.

What is curious is that CNN has withheld the creator'sidentity while making a thinly veiled threat that it will release his name if he posts anything CNN finds disturbing or offensive. That is an odd role for a news organization. The newsmedia do not usually put citizens on probation forexercising theirfree speech.

CNN announced that it had identified the Reddit user HanA**holeSolo who first shared the video that Trump reposted with the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN said the man also posted images with racist and anti-Semitic imagery. Heissued a long apology and removed all of the images.

"I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life.I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts, he wrote. He said hewas engaging in what he thought was satire or trolling fun on Reddit.

Like the poster, I ama fan of Reddit, which is known for its open forum and varied viewpoints. It is often caustic and funny. At times, it is offensive and disturbing. However, it is a genuine and largely uninhibited forum for free expression.

No, Trump's wrestling tweet doesn't 'incite violence'

Yes, Donald Trump and other presidents can be charged with obstruction

The Trump videoby the Reddit user was a typical satire on contemporary political events. It is not even clear whetherit was meant as a celebration or a criticism of Trump. It simply swapped out the face of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Vince McMahon with the CNN gif.

It was the exercise of free speech. It was also news. While posting such a video on Reddit is not surprising or noteworthy, it took on an entirely new character when Trump reposted it. He haswaged an intense war against the news media and CNN in particular. That makes the original poster'sidentity newsworthy.

CNN, however, stated that it has decided to withhold hisname for now. He is a private citizen, the network said, who apologized, took down the offending posts and said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

The last statement is particularly jarring. It sounds like CNN is putting a citizen on a type of media probationary status threatening to reveal his name if it deems any posting as constituting ugly behavior. It puts a news organization in the position of monitoring free speech and deciding whether to ruin someone if he crosses some ill-defined line with CNN. It is the antithesis of what a news organization is supposed to be about.

CNN caved to Trump. It should have stood by its reporters.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

If the mans name is news, CNN can choose to publish it or not publish it. In reality, he is news only because his videotape was snatched from obscurity and paraded to the world by the president of the United States. It is the Internet equivalent of being hit by lightning. If the man posts an anti-media comment or gif, will CNN then declare it news and post his name? It is not clear how long this probationary period will run, let alone the standard for distinguishing between free speech and ugly speech.

Nor is there a clear rationale behind a media probationary status. Journalists will often withhold the names of sexual assault victims or minors. However, they don'tthreaten to reveal those names if they fall to meet the news organizations' expectations or standards in future conduct. Indeed, even when juries reject sexual assault claims, CNN continues to protect thenames.

In this case, CNN is behaving like a media censor. The president arbitrarily selected this man and his gif. Now CNN appears willing to arbitrarily punish him.

It is the threat of future disclosure that is so concerning and dangerous.News is not supposed to be a weapon to be brandished to induce good conduct by organizations like CNN. Free speech and free press go hand in hand. Indeed, many reporters are protected more under the former right than the latter in legal controversies. Once a news organization becomes the manager of free speech, it becomes a menace to the free press.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tRZ4Fb

See the original post here:

CNN in odd role as censor: Network threatens free speech over Trump wrestling video - USA TODAY

GUEST: George Zornick, Nation Magazine's Washington editor, author of a new article, "Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help"

BACKGROUND: The NRA, which spent tens of millions of dollars to help elect Donald Trump, has recently posted to its Facebook page a terrifying video aimed at progressives. Conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch is the video's narrator and she begins by saying, "They use their media to assassinate real news." She goes on to say that teachers are teaching children to think of Trump as Hitler and imply that President Barack Obama is backing the resistance to Trump and inciting people to "smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports," and "bully and terrorize the law-abiding."

Loesch concludes that, "the only option is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness." The video ends claiming that the NRA is "freedom's safest place."

But my guest George Zornick, the Nation's Washington editor has a cover story in the latest edition of the magazine. In it he writes that NRA head Wayne La Pierre, "understands the gun-rights movement as a culture war first and a battle over gun laws second."

Visit link:

NRA's Dangerous Propaganda Video Is Aimed At the Left - Free Speech TV

In the same week that the state Legislature sent a bill to Gov. Roy Cooper to restore and preserve free speech on the states public university campuses, East Carolina University received a top rating for protecting free speech on its campus.

Officials said ECU has earned a green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education after changing four campus policies to meet First Amendment standards. FIRE also helped state legislative leaders craft HB 527, which requires the University of North Carolina Board of Governors to adopt a uniform speech policy for all campuses in the UNC system.The bill is intended to prevent universities and campus groups from policies and actions that deter free speech.

In a year surrounded by controversy over free expression and speech on college campuses including ECU the FIRE group and HB 527 are being lauded and scrutinized because of its support from conservative backers, including several organizations supported by the Koch Brothers.

After ECUs Craig Malmrose, a professor in the School of Art and Design, asked the university to revise its yellow light speech codes, administrators at the 29,000-student university revised four policies in accordance with FIREs recommendations, Laura Beltz, a policy reform official with FIRE, told The Daily Reflector. Beltz came to ECU and worked on policy reform with Steve Serck, associate university attorney.

Four ECU speech policies had earned FIREs yellow light designations due to ambiguous wording that led to free speech restrictions, Beltz said. Two were related to facilities where speech was more restricted, and another was related to computer use policy. The final objection related to the universitys written creed, which made students pledge specific behaviors of civility and common courtesy, Beltz said.

Weve seen those civility requirements used before to police protected speech, so we required a revision to make them more aspirational, rather than mandatory, Beltz said.

The challenges to campus speech have shifted over the years, Beltz said.

We began in the 1990s to deal with the censorship actions of university administrations, but we now see a lot of problems stemming from students calling for censorship, Beltz said. There are a lot of students on the left calling for censorship of views on the right, and it can be disheartening for us. Of course, we want to protect students right to free speech, and when other students are calling for that right to be taken away, it can be frustrating.

FIRE tracks what it calls disinvitations on college campuses, actions taken by students or student-led groups to prevent appearances by speakers with whose views they strongly disagree. In March, a group of ECU students protested the campus appearance of controversial conservative commentator Tomi Lahren.

On the other end of the protest spectrum,19 members of the ECU band rested on a knee during the anthem at the opening of Saturdays game with the University of Central Florida. Chancellor Cecil Staton issued a release shortly after the protest that supported the students right to free expression. The protest and Statons reaction produced outrage from fans who threatened to pull their support from the university.

Beltz thinks much of the confrontation over speech results from the new world of social media, in which something said on a campus that a few students once found offensive now can instantly become viral and draw worldwide calls for censorship.

Virginia Hardy, ECU Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, issued a statement following the changes that led to the new green light designation.

At ECU we are committed to free speech and freedom of expression on our campus, said Hardy. We want our students, faculty, staff and guests to feel comfortable exercising their rights and exploring their ideas. Allowing the opportunity for freedom of expression and civil discourse around differing views has always been, and continues to be, a mainstay of institutions of higher learning.

ECU joins Duke University, North Carolina Central University, and the campuses at Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Greensboro as universities in the state with FIREs green light designation and 32 other colleges and universities that earn a green light rating because their written policies do not imperil student and faculty expression, according to FIREs Spotlight database.

House Bill 527, written by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, also directs the Board of Governors to form a Committee on Free Expression. That body would enforce the speech policy across all UNC campuses. The bill is headed to Gov. Roy Coopers desk for his signature.

The bill is a solution in search of a problem, but free speech always should be a priority for public universities, Sarah Gillooly, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, told the Carolina Journal last week.

In the rare circumstances where there is an issue with the stifling of free speech on campus, appropriate remedies exist and are working, Gillooly said.

Contact Michael Abramowitz at mabramowitz@reflector.comor 252-329-9507.

Continue reading here:

ECU changes policies to bolster free speech - Daily Reflector - Greenville Daily Reflector