A periodical devoted to the study of a long-dead European music theorist is an unlikely suspect to spark an explosive battle over race and free speech.

But the tiny Journal of Schenkerian Studies, with a paid circulation of about 30 copies an issue per year, has ignited a fiery reckoning over race and the limits of academic free speech, along with whiffs of a generational struggle. The battle threatens to consume the career of Timothy Jackson, a 62-year-old music theory professor at the University of North Texas, and led to calls to dissolve the journal.

It also prompted Professor Jackson to file an unusual lawsuit charging the university with violating his First Amendment rights while accusing his critics of defamation.

This tale began in the autumn of 2019 when Philip Ewell, a Black music theory professor at Hunter College, addressed the Society for Music Theory in Columbus, Ohio. He described music theory as dominated by white males and beset by racism. He held up the theorist Heinrich Schenker, who died in Austria in 1935, as an exemplar of that flawed world, a virulent racist who wrote of primitive and inferior races views, he argued, that suffused his theories of music.

Ive only scratched the surface in showing out how Schenkers racism permeates his music theories, Professor Ewell said, accusing generations of Schenker scholars of trying to whitewash the theorist in an act of colorblind racism.

The societys members its professoriate is 94 percent white responded with a standing ovation. Many younger faculty members and graduate students embraced his call to dismantle white mythologies and study non-European music forms. The tone was of repentance.

We humbly acknowledge that we have much work to do to dismantle the whiteness and systemic racism that deeply shape our discipline, the societys executive board later stated.

At the University of North Texas, however, Professor Jackson, a white musicologist, watched a video of that speech and felt a swell of anger. His fellow scholars stood accused, some by name, of constructing a white witness protection program and shrugging off Schenkers racism. That struck him as unfair and inaccurate, as some had explored Schenkers oft-hateful views on race and ethnicity.

A tenured music theory professor, Professor Jackson was the grandson of Jewish migrs and had lost many relatives in the Holocaust. He had a singular passion: He searched out lost works by Jewish composers hounded and killed by the Nazis.

And he devoted himself to the study of Schenker, a towering Jewish intellect credited with stripping music to its essence in search of an internal language. The Journal of Schenkerian Studies, published under the aegis of the University of North Texas, was read by a small but intense coterie of scholars.

He and other North Texas professors decided to explore Professor Ewells claims about connections between Schenkers racial views and music theories.

They called for essays and published every submission. Five essays stoutly defended Professor Ewell; most of the remaining 10 essays took strong issue. One was anonymous. Another was plainly querulous. (Ewell of course would reply that I am white and by extension a purveyor of white music theory, while he is Black, wrote David Beach, a retired dean of music at the University of Toronto. I cant argue with that.).

Professor Jacksons essay was barbed. Schenker, he wrote, was no privileged white man. Rather he was a Jew in prewar Germany, the definition of the persecuted other. The Nazis destroyed much of his work and his wife perished in a concentration camp.

Professor Jackson then took an incendiary turn. He wrote that Professor Ewell had scapegoated Schenker within the much larger context of Black-on-Jew attacks in the United States and that his denunciation of Schenker and Schenkerians may be seen as part and parcel of the much broader current of Black anti-Semitism. He wrote that such phenomena currently manifest themselves in myriad ways, including the pattern of violence against Jews, the obnoxious lyrics of some hip-hop songs, etc.

Noting the paucity of Black musicians in classical music, Professor Jackson wrote that few grow up in homes where classical music is profoundly valued. He proposed increased funding for music education and a commitment to demolishing institutionalized racist barriers.

And he took pointed shots at Professor Ewell.

I understand full well, Professor Jackson wrote, that Ewell only attacks Schenker as a pretext to his main argument: That liberalism is a racist conspiracy to deny rights to people of color.

His remarks lit a rhetorical match. The journal appeared in late July. Within days the executive board of the Society for Music Theory stated that several essays contained anti-Black statements and personal ad hominem attacks and said that its failure to invite Professor Ewell to respond was designed to replicate a culture of whiteness.

Soon after, 900 professors and graduate students signed a letter denouncing the journals editors for ignoring peer review. The essays, they stated, constituted anti-Black racism.

Graduate students at the University of North Texas issued an unsigned manifesto calling for the journal to be dissolved and for the potential removal of faculty members who used it to promote racism.

University of North Texas officials in December released an investigation that accused Professor Jackson of failing to hew to best practices and of having too much power over the journals graduate student editor. He was barred from the magazine, and money for the Schenker Center was suspended.

Jennifer Evans-Crowley, the universitys provost, did not rule out that disciplinary steps might be taken against Professor Jackson. I cant speak to that at this time, she told The New York Times.

Professor Jackson stands shunned by fellow faculty. Two graduate students who support him told me their peers feared that working with him could damage their careers.

Everything has become exceedingly polarized and the Twitter mob is like a quasi-fascist police state, Professor Jackson said in an interview. Any imputation of racism is anathema and therefore I must be exorcised.

This controversy raises intertwined questions. What is the role of universities in policing intellectual debate? Academic duels can be metaphorically bloody affairs. Marxists slash and parry with monetarists; postmodernists trade punches with modernists. Tenure and tradition traditionally shield sharp-tongued academics from censure.

For a university to intrude struck others as alarming. Samantha Harris, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, a free speech advocacy group, urged the university to drop its investigation.She did not argue Professor Jacksons every word was temperate.

This is an academic disagreement and it should be hashed out in journals of music theory, Ms. Harris said. The academic debate centers on censorship and putting orthodoxy over education, and that is chilling.

That said, race is an electric wire in American society and a traditional defense of untrammeled speech on campus competes with a newer view that speech itself can constitute violence. Professors who denounced the journal stressed that they opposed censorship but noted pointedly that cultural attitudes are shifting.

Im educated in the tradition that says the best response to bad speech is more speech, said Professor Edward Klorman of McGill University. But sometimes the traditional idea of free speech comes into conflict with safety and inclusivity.

There is too a question with which intellectuals have long wrestled. What to make of intellectuals who voice monstrous thoughts? The renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger was a Nazi Party member and Paul de Man, a deconstructionist literary theorist, wrote for pro-Nazi publications. The Japanese writer Yukio Mishima eroticized fascism and tried to inspire a coup.

Schenker, who was born in Galicia, part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, was an ardent cultural Germanophile and given to dyspeptic diatribes. He spoke of the filthy French; English, and Italians as inferior races; and Slavs as half animals. Africans had a cannibal spirit.

Did his theoretical brilliance counter the weight of disreputable rages?

Professor Ewell argued that Schenkers racism and theories are inseparable. At a minimum, he wrote in a paper, we must present Schenkers work to our students in full view of his racist beliefs.

The dispute has played out beyond the United States. Forty-six scholars and musicians in Europe and the Middle East wrote a defense of Professor Jackson and sounded a puzzled note. Professor Ewell, they wrote, delivered a provocative polemic with accusations aimed at living scholars and Professor Jackson simply answered in kind.

Neither professor is inclined to back down. A cellist and scholar of Russian classical music, Professor Ewell, 54, describes himself as an activist for racial, gender and social justice and a critic of whiteness in music theory.

Shortly after the Journal of Schenkerian Studies appeared in July, Professor Ewell who eight years ago published in that journal canceled a lecture at the University of North Texas. He said he had not read the essays that criticized him.

I wont read them because I wont participate in my dehumanization, he told The Denton Record-Chronicle in Texas. They were incensed by my Blackness challenging their whiteness.

Professor Ewell, who also is on the faculty of the City University of New York Graduate Center, declined an interview with The Times. He is part of a generation of scholars who are undertaking critical-race examinations of their fields. In Music Theory and the White Racial Frame, the paper he presented in Columbus, he writes that he is for all intents a practitioner of white music theory and that rigorous conversations about race and whiteness are required to make fundamental antiracist changes in our structures and institutions.

For music programs to require mastery of German, he has said, is racist obviously. He has criticized the requirement that music Ph.D. students study German or a limited number of white languages, noting that at Yale he needed a dispensation to study Russian. He wrote that the antiracist policy solution would be to require languages with one new caveat: any language including sign language and computer languages, for instance is acceptable with the exception of Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French or German, which will only be allowed by petition as a dispensation.

Last April he fired a broadside at Beethoven, writing that it would be academically irresponsible to call him more than an above average composer. Beethoven, he wrote, has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for 200 years.

As for Schenker, Professor Ewell argued that his racism informed his music theories: As with the inequality of races, Schenker believed in the inequality of tones.

That view is contested. Professor Eric Wen arrived in the United States from Hong Kong six decades ago and amid slurs and loneliness discovered in classical music what he describes as a colorblind solace. Schenker held a key to mysteries.

Schenker penetrated to the heart of what makes music enduring and inspiring, said Professor Wen, who teaches at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He was no angel and so what? His ideology is problematic but his insights are massive.

How this ends is not clear. The university report portrayed Professor Jackson as hijacking the journal, ignoring a graduate student editor, making decisions on his own and tossing aside peer review.

A trove of internal emails, which were included as exhibits in the lawsuit, casts doubt on some of those claims. Far from being a captive project of Professor Jackson, the emails show that members of the journals editorial staff were deeply involved in the planning of the issue, and that several colleagues on the faculty at North Texas, including one seen as an ally of Professor Ewell, helped draft its call for papers.

When cries of racism arose, all but one of those colleagues denounced the journal. A graduate student editor publicly claimed to have participated because he feared retaliation from Professor Jackson, who was his superior, and said he had essentially agreed with Professor Ewell all along. The emails paint a contradictory picture, as he had described Professor Ewells paper as naive.

Professor Jackson hired a lawyer who specialized in such cases, Michael Allen, and the lawsuit he filed against his university charges retaliation against his free speech rights. More extraordinary, he sued fellow professors and a graduate student for defamation. That aspect of the lawsuit was a step too far for FIRE, the free speech group, which supported targeting the university but took the view that suing colleagues and students was a tit-for-tat exercise in squelching speech.

We believe such lawsuits are generally unwise, the group stated, and can often chill or target core protected speech.

See the original post here:

Obscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles Over Race and Free Speech - The New York Times

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment to the Constitution)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16, KJV)

The first quote is the law of the land, the second is not. Further, the first quote makes it clear that it is up to the individual to decide whether to adhere to the second quote.

To some extent, and in the spirit of free speech, the U.S. Constitution permits the bearing of false witness or lying as a constitutional right. The framers of the Constitution were more concerned about the suppression of speech than the corruption of it. They reasoned that men [and women] of good conscience would outweigh those with no conscience.

But the framers of the Constitution could not possibly envision the power and ability of the internet and mass media outlets to spread and amplify lies to millions of Americans. Worse, that in the two-party system that emerged after the First Amendment was adopted, one party would use mass media and the internet to develop alternative versions of reality; one steeped in populist beliefs augmented by an unscrupulous orator.

Lies and misinformation threaten to destroy our free speech. We have all witnessed that firsthand. In the past three months, we have seen how Donald Trumps lies about a stolen election led to an insurrection against the government and a loss of faith in our election process, the very heart of our democracy.

In the backlash of these lies, several entities, most notably Dominion and Smartmatic, the makers of election software, are suing Trumps lawyer as well as several news sources in multi-billion-dollar lawsuits on charges of defamation. Now the courts will decide how much free speech will be permitted to destroy the reputation of a company, an individual or a states election process.

This appears to be the future direction of free speech in America. An individual, a company or a political party can openly tell lies or spread misinformation and then magnify it in public media and leave it to the courts to decide whether their right to free speech can ruin a persons life or destroy another company or even democracy itself.

Further, since litigation of this magnitude often requires large financial resources, the litigation of slander will often come down to a question of wealth and monetary backing. Free speech in America will exist only for those who can afford to back it up in court.

Even if the Constitution permitted the restriction of free speech against slanderous lies, we would not be able to regulate our way out of bearing false witness. The dividing line between what speech is permissible and what is illegal would be more dynamic than it is now. I believe the framers of the First Amendment understood that.

The United States has grown from a rebellious group of idealistic colonies to the most powerful nation ever to have existed. We are so powerful that the temptation of that power will cause many to trade their integrity to obtain it.

In the end, our democracy depends upon our integrity. Our freedom of speech is our most important heritage. To preserve it, we must speak truth and stand up to those who would pervert it.

(James Fieseher lives in Dover.)

Go here to read the rest:

My Turn: Our biggest threats to free speech - Concord Monitor

As a law professor, I am a strong defender of free speech. Defending free speech as a constitutional principle means defending the right of people to speak even when I disagree with their message.

As a Democratic State Representative from Iowa City, I have heard a lot recently about how Iowa Republicans believe they are victims of First Amendment violations against conservative speech. The Iowa House Government Oversight Committee held hearings to review complaints that the Regents Universities had infringed on conservative students free speech rights. In the University of Iowa case, the College of Dentistry Dean admitted that the College was wrong to schedule an inquiry for a student who criticized the Colleges statement opposing an Executive Order issued by then-President Trump. Republican lawmakers accused the universities of hypocrisy, and said that it is a universitys job to educate, not indoctrinate.

I readily concede that the University made a mistake. Under the First Amendment, a state university should not punish anyone for commenting on a matter of public concern such as an Executive Order. To do so is not only a violation of First Amendment principles; it is also antithetical to the Universitys educational mission to foster robust debate across different points of view. I was glad to see that university officials immediately recognized their mistake, apologized, and reversed course.

But there is another side to this story. Iowa Republicans say they are victims of free speech violations, but they are also perpetrators. Several of them have made statements or introduced bills that blatantly violate principles of free speech and association.

Here are just a few of the more egregious examples from the first five weeks of the legislative session:

Iowa House and Senate leadership should have pronounced these bills dead on arrival. Instead, they breathed life into them by assigning them to committees and allowing them to advance to committee and perhaps even to the floor. Even if these bills dont ultimately pass, they do real damage to our educational system every time they are publicly debated. They also chill free speech, as no one dares to speak against them for fear that they or their employer will be further punished by vindictive legislation.

When conservatives believe their free speech rights have been violated, they are right to call it out. We should all call it out, no matter who is speaking. But our Republican state legislators also need to clean up around their own doorstep. And they should certainly stop playing the victim when they hold all the political power in the state and are wielding it to suppress the free speech of thousands of Iowans.

Original post:

Letter to the editor: Free speech and politics in Iowa - Little Village

An important part of University of Virginias ongoing commitment to free expression and to fully and honestly explore UVAs complex history is moving forward this week with the creation of two new committees.

UVA President Jim Ryan and Provost Liz Magill have announced the creation of one committee to articulate the Universitys commitment to free expression and free inquiry, and another to examine naming and memorials on Grounds.

We are working to give voice to our commitment as an educational institution to the free and open exchange of ideas, and to grapple with the complexities of our Universitys history and the names that we honor, Ryan said. These committees will help us forge a path forward as we continue to address these issues as a community and as a nation.

First Amendment expert Leslie Kendrick, White Burkett Miller Professor of Law and Public Affairs and vice dean at UVAs School of Law, will chair the Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry. The group will craft a statement that identifies the role that free expression and free inquiry play in UVAs academic enterprise and how they shape engagement with the ideas of others. The statement will reflect the Universitys values, its history and its legal obligations as a public institution.

Free expression and free inquiry are the lifeblood of universities; these principles underpin this Universitys educational missions of producing knowledge, developing citizen leaders, and serving, Magill said.In a moment where the country is experiencing heightened conflict, we believe its essential to concisely articulate those foundational commitments of University life.

The members of the Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry are:

University Counsel Tim Heaphy will serve as counsel to the committee, whose work will begin soon.

President Ryan and Provost Magill have assembled a highly accomplished and diverse group of scholars and University representatives to consider these important topics, Kendrick said. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee.

Michael Suarez, English professor and executive director of the Rare Book School, will chair the Naming and Memorials Committee, which is a reconfiguration and reconstitution of a previously existing committee. The group is charged with delineating principles and protocols for naming and, under certain limited circumstances, renaming buildings on Grounds. The committee is also tasked with making recommendations about the status and contextualization of memorials.

In each case, the committee will carefully review and develop recommendations that will then be sent to President Ryan for his review and, if advanced, to the Board of Visitors.

Our University, as a public institution of higher education, is not a place stuck in time, but a dynamic community where history is alive and ever-changing, Suarez said. We have a responsibility not only to record that history, but also to interpret it for current and future generations, to give it context and meaning. The Naming and Memorials Committee has been entrusted with an extraordinary educational opportunity: to help the University to continue to tell our long and complex story.

The formation of the committee comes on the heels of the Board of Visitors approval in September of five recommendations from UVAs Racial Equity Task Force regarding changes to UVAs historic landscape.

The members of the Naming and Memorials Committee are:

The committees consultants are:

Go here to read the rest:

University Names New Committees on Free Speech and the Historic Landscape at UVA - UVA Today

There is a fundamental belief among Americans that we have the right to do and say whatever we want because we are protected by the First Amendment. Although freedom of speech exists in America, all speech is not free. There is a cost.

On Monday, the U.S. Senate began debating whether to hold Donald Trump accountable for inciting the Capitol insurrection that resulted in the deaths of five individuals including a Capitol police officer. At issue is a single article of impeachment that accuses the former president of reiterating false claims that he had won this election and that he willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol.

In response, Trumps legal team has asserted that the statements he made at the rally were protected by his First Amendment right to free speech. Thus, Trump should not be held accountable for any subsequent actions of the protesters.

In the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the sacredness of free speech, established that the government can punish what has been defined to be inflammatory speech if that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action producing and is likely to incite or produce such action."

However, the impeachment and trial process as set forth in the Constitution may be viewed as a political process rather than a judicial process. There is a difference. In the judicial process, attorneys dispute the existence of necessary facts to establish that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime. In this political impeachment process, the law will be argued as opposed to the facts. Because this process is taking place in a partisan Senate, it is not likely that Trump will be found guilty, especially given the retributive nature of party politics.

As Americans, we have become comfortable with the concept of freedom, the ability to determine our own destiny. We have freedom of speech, religion, press and freedom. We are free to peacefully assemble, and we have free elections. It was the idea that all men were created equal that inspired one of the greatest civil rights movements in history where oppressed African Americans demonstrated their humanity in refusing to meet violence with violence.

The Capitol insurrection is much bigger than just a few people getting drunk on Trumpism. We the People must defend our nation against the domestic terroristic ideas that threaten our democracy from within such as partisan politics, classism, elitism and racism. As true citizens of America, we must do our part in protecting democracy. If nothing more comes of this impeachment trial, America should be reminded that ideas, not weapons, are the most powerful tools of revolution.

BLAIR D. CONDOLL, J.D.

political science professor, Dillard University

New Orleans

Read the original:

Letters: The limits of free speech and the dangers of violence and insurrection - The Advocate

For conservatives, free speech has become particularly bewildering in the age of social media. In the years leading up to Twitter forcing Donald Trump to find a new hobby, conservatives railed against cancel culture, suggesting that deplatforming is an infringement on their First Amendment rights as if our Founding Fathers fought to secure your constitutional right to that creepy shared account with your spouse.

As high school civics taught us, censorship requires government action; First Amendment rights generally dont protect you from private actors. Do I have the right to come into your business and say your wife is ugly and your father assassinated John F. Kennedy? I could say that, but you could also throw me out on my butt. (Or, if youre Ted Cruz, praise me and support my presidency.)

Implicit in the right to speak freely is the right to associate freely. To put free association in terms that conservatives should be familiar with, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are bakers, your social media accounts are gay wedding cakes, and neither Zuckerberg nor Dorsey have to bake that cake.

Meanwhile, on the left, free speech is reduced to one head-scratching cliche: You cant shout fire in a crowded theater. When I hear this, I want to douse myself in kerosene and take my chances inside the theater.

The bromide paraphrases Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote in the 1919 majority decision for Schenck v. United States, The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Schenck involved an anti-war activist who was convicted for the dangerous act of gulp handing out leaflets. Turns out a man audaciously suggesting peace during wartime doesnt roll off the tongue as well.

Yes, free speech has limits (e.g., defamation, obscenity, telling your kids that Santa Claus is a Deep State conspiracy). However, this phrase is useless. Imagine finding roadkill while out for a walk with a friend. You ask, What kind of animal is that? Your friend responds, Not all animals are armadillos. Though technically true, this insight wont help crack the case.

Fortunately, this flimsy legal reasoning was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which established a higher standard for censorship. Where Schenck provided the government with a bazooka, Brandenburg traded down for a Red Ryder BB gun with a warped barrel.

And thank goodness. Gifting government with a broad scope to censor is akin to lending a Bowie knife to your toddler for his arts-and-crafts project.

Confusion converges politically with one specific topic: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 shields internet companies from legal liability of whatever nonsense trolls and keyboard warriors post on their websites. Without 230, the internet would not be what it is today. However, spend any amount of time in the comments section and youll find that the current shape of the internet isnt exactly a compelling argument.

The right and left both want to abolish 230 but for different reasons. The right believes 230 grants immunity to Silicon Valley companies, allowing them to deplatform their fellow conservatives with impunity. However, without 230, it is likely that more deplatforming would occur, because most prudent businessmen shy away from being legally liable for some manifesto-writing dude who uses the screen name QAnon4Lyfe1776.

Meanwhile, progressives want 230 gone because they believe it protects hate speech. Unfortunately, they define hate speech like how they identify roadkill: Whatever it is, it aint an armadillo.

We often discuss freedom but rarely the obligation to use it responsibly. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. And the best place to invest this coin is within a competitive marketplace of ideas. In the dissenting opinion for Abrams v. United States (another case involving a dastardly anti-war pamphleteer), Oliver Wendell Holmes yes, the same Holmes who worried about fiery theaters wrote, The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

In this marketplace of ideas, the best investment strategy is to avoid the short-selling hucksterism of those who fail to grasp the long-term value of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Freedom isnt zero-sum but rather a multiplier effect that can open up a boundless world of beauty, innovation, and nuance. When embraced responsibly, freedom pays off with dividends.

View original post here:

COLUMN: Free speech failures of the left and right - Montrose Daily Press

I was shocked to read the many letters in last weeks paper publicly flogging the editor for publishing the article Big Tech Censorship Hits Home. The vitriol that the writers of these letters had for the woman in the article and for the editor who dared to publish her story was alarming.

Politics is downstream of culture. While free speech is currently protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, I worry that our culture is shifting away from the values that uphold this precious right by calling for censorship. While it is true that Facebook is a private company that has the right to do what they want, it is also true that Facebook acts as a public square for people to share information and have open conversations about important topics. However, it is no longer an open forum when people are shut out of the conversation. If our culture not only accepts, but calls for censorship and profile deletion of anyone that they deem disagreeable, then I fear that our First Amendment rights will also soon be deleted.

It is frightening to think that so many people willingly accept Facebook as the arbiter of truth. Are we willing to allow this company and their algorithms to decide what we see and how we communicate? It might suit your needs today when Facebook is deleting profiles that you find disagreeable, but what about tomorrow when Facebook decides that your profile is the new unmentionable?

The spirit of free speech allows people to speak their mind without the threat of being silenced. Instead of insisting that unfavorable ideas are shut down, lets rise to the challenge of a proper debate in an effort to present a better, more sound idea.

View post:

Letter: The culture of free speech | Letters to the Editor | tillamookheadlightherald.com - Tillamook Headlight-Herald

The University has announced the creation of two new committees, one focused on free speech and expression and the other examining the names of University institutions and the contextualization and status of memorials on Grounds.

The Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry will write a statement identifying the roles of free expression and free inquiry in the University's academic enterprise as well as how they shape engagement with the ideas of others. This committee will be chaired by Leslie Kendrick, White Burkett Miller professor of law and public affairs and vice dean at the School of Law.

We are working to give voice to our commitment as an educational institution to the free and open exchange of ideas, and to grapple with the complexities of our Universitys history and the names that we honor, University President Jim Ryan said. These committees will help us forge a path forward as we continue to address these issues as a community and as a nation.

Additional members of this committee include Dean of Students Allen Groves; Kevin McDonald, vice president for diversity, equity and inclusion; Mazzen Shalaby, fourth-year Batten student and Board of Visitors student member; Susan Kirk, professor, associate dean for graduate medical education and chair-elect of the Faculty Senate as well as various other alumni, faculty and administrators. University Counsel Tim Heaphy will also serve as counsel to the committee.

Ryan addressed the issue of free speech in a statement this fall following controversy over signs posted on Lawn room doors critiquing the University. The signs, which contained profanity such as FCK UVA, generated calls for removal from some alumni and community members. In his statement, Ryan said that after consultation with Heaphy, the University could not remove the signs but would consider placing a ban on all signage on Lawn room doors as early as next year.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education a watchdog group for free speech and other related issues at college and universities previously awarded the University a green light speech code rating, the highest given by the organization. The green light rating indicates there is no University policy that is a serious threat to students free speech rights on Grounds.

Free speech also played a major role in the events of Aug. 11 and 12, 2017, when neo-Nazis and white supremacists held a violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

The University also announced the creation of a Naming and Memorials Committee, which will serve as a reconfiguration of the Universitys Committee on Names. The new committee will establish protocols for naming and in some cases, renaming buildings on Grounds as well as making recommendations on contextualizing memorials. Recommendations will be sent to Ryan for review and then to the Board of Visitors.

The Naming and Memorials Committee will be chaired by Michael Suarez, English professor and executive director of the Rare Book School.

Our University, as a public institution of higher education, is not a place stuck in time but a dynamic community where history is alive and ever-changing, Suarez said. We have a responsibility not only to record that history, but also to interpret it for current and future generations, to give it context and meaning.

Additional members of the Naming and Memorials Committee will include Shalaby, History and African American Studies Prof. Kevin Gaines and various other faculty, alumni and administrators. The committee will also refer to numerous consultants from both the University and Charlottesville communities.

Following the release of the racial equity task forces final report, which suggested 12 initiatives to promote racial equity at the University, the Board of Visitors voted to adopt five recommendations recontextualization of the Thomas Jefferson statue, removal and relocation of the George Rogers Clark statue, rededication or removal of the Frank Hume Memorial Wall, renaming the School of Education and Human Development and removing Henry Withers name from the name of Withers-Brown Hall.

In anticipation of the Board of Visitors decision, the Minority Rights Coalition is calling on the University to immediately remove the wall and not rededicate it.

Last summer, the Board of Visitors voted to rename Ruffner Hall to Ridley Hall after Walter Ridley, the first African American to earn a doctoral degree from the University. Community members, activists and students have also called into question the name of Alderman Library, which is named after Edwin Alderman, first president of the University and known white supremacist and eugenicist.

Following the renaming of Ruffner Hall, a petition was also circulated over the summer calling on the University to remove names that should no longer be honored on Grounds many buildings are named after known white supremacists.

Here is the original post:

U.Va. creates committees on Free Expression and Free Inquiry, Naming and Memorials - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer of Twitter, testifies remotely as Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., looks at his iPad during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Photo By Bill Clark/Pool/Sipa USA via Reuters

In the aftermath of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, crackdowns on certain social-media accounts and apps involved in the violence have further fueled a debate over reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely protects online platforms from liability for their users content, and other policy options. The conversation about the role of private companies in regulating speech has quickly become a transatlantic oneas well as a test for how free and open societies should best approach a free and open internet. So how exactly can Europes experiences with regulating online speech and content inform the debate in the United States? And what should solutions look like in the United States? Were offering a series of perspectives. Below, the Europe Centers Distinguished Fellow Frances Burwell offers her perspective. Read Europe Center Nonresident Senior Fellow Kenneth Propps perspective here.

The decisions by Facebook and Twitter to suspend former US President Donald Trump and thousands of other accounts following the riots at the US Capitol have been criticized by some as trampling on free speech and by others as too little too late. But the real question is why two private companies have been the key decision-makers in this situation. Rather than relying on CEOs Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, the US governmentespecially Congress and the courtsshould make clear what type of speech is acceptable online and what type of speech is not.

After the events of January 6, Congress will certainly take on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Actthe 1996 law that allows online platforms, including social-media companies, to escape liability for content posted by their users. When Congress does look at the act, it should not just focus on the companies and their responsibilities. Legislators should take a good, hard look in the mirror. They must provide the guidelines that are central to reducing violent extremist content online: rules on acceptable versus forbidden online speech.

For all Americans, free speech is a sacred right. But social media has demonstrated a tendency to proliferate and magnify the most hate-filled and conspiracy-based speech at breathtaking speed, with serious consequences for the countrys democratic future. Companies have responded by establishing their own user guidelines and policing content as they each see fit. Legally, they are free to do this, since the First Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech. But many users regard Facebook and Twitter as essential avenues of communication in the digital age that should not be censored. Should we continue to rely on such an ad-hoc system, based on private-sector interests, to restrain especially violent speech? Or is it time to have a serious debate about how the United States as a nation should define and police the most egregious speech online?

As US lawmakers take on this issue, they might usefully draw some lessons from the experience of European governments in regulating content online. The European Union (EU) is without doubt the regulatory superpower of the digital world. Germany and other EU member states have imposed significant obligations on online platforms in terms of monitoring and removing certain content. In some cases, platforms must remove content within twenty-four hours of notification, sometimes less, or face significant fines. For several years, the major social-media companies (including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) have participated in a voluntary EU Code of Conduct, pledging to remove content deemed illegal hate speech after being notified of its existence on their platforms. A 2019 review showed that 90 percent of the notifications were reviewed within twenty-four hours and 71 percent of the material was removed.

This system is about to get even tougher: A proposed EU Digital Services Act will impose significant reporting requirements on companies regarding content removal and, for some platforms, intrusive inspections designed to change how algorithms recommend certain content. In the wake of the Capitol riots, some European politicians urged the United States to adopt similar rules constraining social media.

Such a content-moderation system is only possible, however, if based on a clear definition of unlawful speechand establishing that definition is not a job for corporations, but for elected representatives. Today in the United States, only a few categories of online speech are prohibited, among them terrorist content and child pornography. Other illegal speech includes incitement of imminent lawless and violent action and threats to the US president or vice presidentboth of which Trump may have violated during his speech to supporters before they headed to the Capitol. For the most part, decisions about what is not protected as free speech have been made in the court system, and thus each exemption applies in very specific and limited circumstances. Incitement to lawless and violent action may be protected, for example, if the action is not imminent.

In contrast, many European governments have long defined certain categories of illegal speech, many of which pre-date the online world. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. As in the United States, terrorist content and child pornography are illegal, although European attitudes vary widely toward what is considered obscenity in the United States. Central to European regulation is the idea of illegal hate speech, defined in EU law as the public incitement to violence or hatred directed to groups or individuals on the basis of certain characteristics, including race, color, religion, descent, and national or ethnic origin. While this rule does not prohibit racist caricatures of specific groups or individuals, it does ban calls for violence or other injury. Prohibitions on such hate speech have been enforced not only online, but in magazines, on television, and even in nightclub acts.

If Congress seeks to reduce the liability protections of platforms for user-generated content, it will need to be specific about the nature of proscribed content. Unless that content is clearly defined, companies will simply seek to protect themselves by establishing guidelines that allow only the safest, most mundane material. Any restrictions on online speech should be very limitedperhaps adopting a concept similar to Europes public incitement to violence or hatred or dropping the requirement that the dangerous incitement in question be imminent. Aside from the constitutional considerations, authoritarian governments around the world will see anything but modest limitations as an opportunity to legitimize their own moves to restrict online speech.

While the EU experience offers some useful lessons, even very strict content-moderation rules will not solve the entire problem. The EUs definition of illegal hate speech does not address the spread of conspiracy theories and fake news, for example, both of which are detrimental to US and European democracies and which can be found not only online but also in traditional media outlets. And the regulation of larger platforms often pushes hate speech to the wilder reaches of the internet and smaller, more ephemeral platforms.

US President Joe Biden has called for a Summit of Democracies during 2021, with disinformation on the agenda. The United States and Europe should use this meeting to compare their approaches to the dangers some online content presents to our democracies and to work with other democracies to find a common way forward. As a first step, Congress and the Biden administration must consider how best to safeguard US democracy from incitements to violence and hate.

Frances G. Burwell is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and a senior director at McLarty Associates.

Tue, Dec 15, 2020

A hearing on the consequences of the European Court of Justices invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield illuminated the deepening transatlantic divide over data transfers, and it highlighted the early challenge the subject looks to pose for President-elect Joe Bidens administration, which is eager to repair US-EU relations.

New AtlanticistbyKenneth Propp

See the original post here:

Free speech and online content: What can the US learn from Europe? - Atlantic Council

As important as freedom of speech may be, the failure to put it in the context of other values leads us to some serious problems for our society and, more specifically, for our educational institutions.

In terms of our national political life, we have seen the consequences of defending freedom of speech while attending insufficiently to other essential matters, notably the difference between truth and lies. We face a difficult task if we are to rise to the occasion of saving our form of government.

The damage a fundamentalist approach to free speech can cause our educational systems should be easier to address, given a commitment to core values regarding facts, logic and evaluating sources of information. Where we cannot arrive at the truth about a particular matter definitively, we can still get closer and at least move into the neighborhood. And when we are not ourselves in a position to judge the truth value of what we encounter, we must have ways of evaluating sources and learning how particular experts obtain their special knowledge.

Faculty members who have been especially focused on defending their freedom of speech need to be paying more attention to the quality of their speech. They need to be mindful of their professional responsibilities as well as their rights. That is why they are the ones getting paid and students are the ones paying.

An emphasis on rights is understandable and important at a time that is difficult for faculty generally and especially so for those without tenure. Moreover, some measures taken against faculty members in particular cases -- removal from the classroom or even termination -- have been clearly out of scale with the specific offense. But there is no downside to complementing a concern for faculty rights with a concern for the professional responsibilities that entitle faculty members to take pride in their calling.

In addition to emphasizing the importance of speech supported by facts, sourcing and an interest in truth, faculty members need to teach their students -- and themselves -- how to engage most effectively with those holding different views. They should help students resist the attractions of indulging in self-righteous disdainful abuse. Trying to find out why a person holds certain beliefs is a necessary ethnographic step in the process of dialogue.

While respectful dialogue does not work with everyone, it shapes the ground rules of what is rightly defined as education. And education takes place not only in the classroom, but also in campus free speech zones, since students do not shed their perceptions of faculty/student roles and relationships -- and the unequal nature of them -- when they enter such places.

A breakdown between private and public spheres has especially aggravated our current problems about speech. What faculty members used to say in private -- for example, while enjoying a drink with some colleagues -- is now shared on various nonprivate platforms. What was fine in the former context is not so fine in the latter. We now live with the danger of privacy disappearing altogether.

Our attitudes to free speech are part of a wider, uncritical cultural celebration of freedom abroad in our land. And thus we see many of our fellow citizens refusing to wear masks during a dangerous pandemic and some of our legislators insisting on their right to carry firearms when they report for their day jobs.

An unreflective approach to freedom of speech is often paired with promotion of a marketplace of ideas. Let us note, however, that a marketplace is where you can sell anything -- anything -- that someone else is willing to buy. That may be a less than helpful or inspirational way to think about a democracy, or, for that matter, a society more generally.

We have already followed the path from First Amendment/freedom of speech fundamentalism to Citizens United, a major contribution to turning our democracy into an oligarchy. Will we follow it to where it undermines what education itself is supposed to give to us?

Read the rest here:

Academics should put freedom of speech in the context of other values (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

Editor:

Recently, My Edmonds News reported on the vandalism to the art installation that changed key characteristics of the message into an entirely new message altogether. The public was appropriately appalled, and legal action was pursued. Oscar Wilde is quoted as sayingI may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself. Service members have given their lives defending this freedom. All the people of Edmonds should be mindful, respectful, and display the true meaning of decorum when it comes to defending every citizens right to protected speech.

In local Facebook groups, discussion is abundant and emotionally charged about the theft of political signs and other signs reflecting individual beliefs. We might not agree, or even understand the messages on those signs and can become blinded by our own passion. The use of a sign is a way to provoke thought, declare a strong personal belief, offer support. It is a sacred and protected right we as Americans enjoy and others in the world can only envy. Recently, many in Edmonds have had to resort to extreme measures to keep trespassers, enemies of free speech, and those who disagree from stealing yard signs. This week Councilmember Adrienne-Fraley Monillas used her position to make rhetorical and unproven statements during the Council Comments section of the Jan. 26, 2021 council meeting. I will fight to protect her right to express her thoughts. She is perfectly within her rights to say the things that she does, and residents of Edmonds are perfectly within their rights to display legal signage on private property to express their views.

A case in point. Recently, I was asked to watch a neighbors property while they were away. They had multiple legal signs on their private property. Over the course of seven days, trespassers stole private yard signs no fewer than four times. Fortunately, in two of the cases, I was able to secure photographs of these individuals. I promptly filed a police report and provided the photographs.

The people stealing these signs (and silencing protected speech) need to be prosecuted and serve their penalty.

Whether you want to express Black Lives Matter, Drop the Mike, Equity, Justice, We Choose Kindness, or I Like Turtles signs on your private property is your business. If you dislike the sign, think about why that is and engage in a discussion with those you disagree with to understand their views and share yours. Using misleading speech and to emotionally divide our community as Councilmember Adrienne-Fraley Monillas is doing is both wrong and dangerous.

One thing most of us have in common is our love for this city. We have done our best work when we share ideas, opinions, and respect. Members of this community crave having a voice and a meaningful role in their future. History has taught us what we become when we seek to silence those with whom we disagree.

George BennettEdmonds

See the original post here:

Letter to the editor: Silencing free speech by breaking the law not what Edmonds is about - My Edmonds News

By Bang Showbiz 2h ago

Share this article:

Snapchat co-founder Evan Spiegal has insisted there needs to be a balance between free speech and moderating social media platforms.

The 30-year-old businessman - who launched the popular photo sharing app while studying at Stanford University and became a billionaire five years ago - has insisted users should be allowed to express themselves, even when that includes saying "really inappropriate" things.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We've definitely taken a proactive approach to the content that's distributed on Snapchat, but at the same time, you know, should platforms be responsible?

"For example, for telephone calls, I would say no - if you pick up the phone, and you say something really, really inappropriate and outrageous to your friends, the telephone company isn't responsible for what your friend said, your friend is responsible.

However, Spiegal also noted the importance of finding a balance between a huge audience - more than 70% of 13 to 34-year-olds in the US - and letting people exercise their right to free speech.

He explained: "We do want to make sure that our platform is the place where people can express themselves and even though they say inappropriate things sometimes, our government actually has a whole legal framework to protect that sort of self expression and free speech."

Meanwhile, Spiegal also added while he would be "happy" to pay more taxes, he would expect some of the money to be repaid into tech funding by governments.

He added: "The history of great nations really tends to be built on huge breakthroughs in technology and a lot of times that technology is founded on government investment.

I think it's really easy today in our political system to focus on the failures, rather than these amazing successes.

Regulation is only one part of a comprehensive technology strategy - the rest of it really has to be oriented around...investment in new technology.

BANG ShowBiz Tech

Continued here:

Snapchat boss calls for balance between free speech and social media moderation - IOL

I am writing about State Rep. Dawn Johnson and her link to a neo-Nazi website.

I don't know Dawn Johnson and am not acquainted with the site she linked to. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate she's is an anti-Semite. That said, there is a whole lot more going on here that people better pay attention to. I believe the attack on Johnson did not happen spontaneously. I believe she is being used as an example to put people on notice as to what will happen to them if they step out of line and express ideas not approved by the ruling class.

I believe the elites who want to shut down free speech are all on the left. And I don't really believe for one minute they care about anti-Semitism. As a Jew who grew up in this country, and has encountered my share of anti-Semitic comments, almost all of them came from people on the left. I think the reason they picked Dawn Johnson to make an example of is that it seems so noble and righteous to condemn anti-Semitism, no one will question the motive behind it. To me, the motive is clear. By first picking on people like Dawn, they get us used to the idea of controlled speech. So when the day comes when your right to express yourself is taken from you, you won't be shocked. And if they've really done their job, they'll end up making you feel guilty even though you haven't said anything wrong.

But what if you did say something 'wrong?' So what? The first amendment was designed to protect offensive speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need protection. I'm old enough to see the burgeoning insanity taking root in our once free country. When I was young, if someone said something objectionable, people would talk about it for awhile. The related issues would be hashed out and then we'd be done with it. It is after all, only speech. There is a difference between speech and action. We should be free to say anything.

The other reason I think Dawn was chosen is that she is a Trump supporter. Singling her out supports their canard that Trump is anti-Jewish, which is absurd. Trump is the most Jewish-friendly president we've ever had.

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And he has worked to keep Iran from getting the bomb since they have openly stated they would like to erase Israel from the map and probably would if they could.

The people who attack Dawn are useful tools of the deep state who carry out their agenda, oblivious to how it can and probably will be used against themselves someday. Don't lose heart Dawn. I'd rather have a cup of coffee with you than any one of them any day.

Excerpt from:

Hillarie Goldstein: Right to free speech is protected in this country - The Laconia Daily Sun

It's from last month, but I inadvertently neglected to blog it when it was first put up on YouTube. Here it is, brought to you be the University of Texas Law School's Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center:

Here's the UT summary:

Free Speech and Economic Justice: A Conversation with Law Professors Nelson Tebbe and Eugene Volokh

Join Professors Nelson Tebbe (Cornell Law) and Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law) for a conversation regarding how and whether current applications of free speech doctrines affect disparities in income, wealth, and other goods; whether those applications should be altered; and the disagreements and controversies arising from some of the proposed changes.

Moderated by Texas Law Professor Steven Collis, this promises to be a spiritedbut friendly!dive into one of the most important issues of our time.

It was indeed both spirited and friendly; I hope you find it to also be interesting!

View post:

Conversation on Free Speech and Inequality Between Prof. Nelson Tebbe (Cornell) and Me - Reason

by: News Release & Posted By Staff | newsweb@everythinglubbock.com

Carol Sumner(Photo provided by TTU)

LUBBOCK, Texas (NEWS RELEASE) The following is a news release from Texas Tech University:

Carol A. Sumner, chief diversity officer and vice president ofTexas Tech UniversitysDivision of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, has been named to a new national task force that will focus on free speech expression in higher education. TheAcademic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expressionhas been launched by theBipartisan Policy Center(BPC) to identify practices, programs and policies that foster robust campus cultures.

The task force led by former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, CEO of Challenge Seattle, and former Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, Middlebury College executive in residence includes a diverse group of university presidents, professors, administrators and civic leaders with distinguished records of creating strategies to strengthen open exchange and tolerance at a wide range of higher education institutions.

Free speech is the hallmark, the bedrock of who we are in terms of culture; its the thought that we dont have to agree to share our perspective, Sumner said. It is through our ability to converse and share our perspectives that we truly learn. You cannot empathize with others if you are not exposed to experiences that are different from your own or you do not have the opportunity to share your own experiences.

Sumner said she first learned about the task force after her involvement in other BPC events on free speech and discourse on racial issues in higher education. Colleges and universities are searching for ways to create meaningful free-expression strategies that suit a changing higher education landscape while staying true to their institutions unique mission and their commitments to diversity and inclusion. Those who wish to create such an approach can lack a reliable roadmap for doing so.

One of the goals is to create a resource kit or manual that includes certain steps on ways to look at free speech and how to ensure it is a practice that continues on our campuses, Sumner said.

The task force will look at several issues including:

Higher education institutions have a special role in Americas democracy, preparing the next generation for civic leadership and principled debate, said BPC President Jason Grumet. Our democracy cannot succeed if we accept the false premise that free expression is somehow at odds with cultural diversity, inclusion and individual well-being.

The other members of the task force are:

This is going to bring together leaders from across education who have the scale and scope of experiences that allow us to see the topic of free speech from different perspectives, Sumner said. My goal is to contribute as much as I get out of the experience. It is through our shared knowledge that we can help create a set of resources that will benefit not just those on our campuses, but those who are in the communities where our institutions are located.

BPC will host thefirst panel event on the task forcefrom noon to 1 p.m. Dec. 1.Those interested in attending may RSVP online.

(News release from Texas Tech University)

Visit link:

TTUs Sumner named to new national task force on campus free speech expression - KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com

We have all seen, and the spate of attacks in France and Austria tells us, that the threat of terrorism hasn't gone away.

French teacher Samuel Paty's head was cut off by an 18-year-old Chechen teenager. He had shown his classroom students, when they were discussing freedom of speech, cartoons that were put out by Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine.

French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement paying tribute to Mr Paty and defending the right in France to publish such cartoons. He made a very strong speech, covering many different aspects.

That speech then got a very strong counter-reaction from Muslims around the world, and some described the actions of France as Islamophobic. Jihadists have jumped on it. They've called on followers to attack French interests, and to attack anyone who insults Islam and the way they define as insulting Islam.

As a result, there were follow-up attacks. There were attacks in Nice, Lyon and in Vienna, Austria. It shows that when jihadists make such calls, there are people who will follow, and a few others, and more terror.

We all have said, we all know, jihadists don't represent Islam. You have people like that in every religion who will resort to violence. It is not a problem with any particular religion, but you will always have people like this. The question is how we deal with them.

What has happened in France has restarted the debate on what freedom of expression means, how much you can say, and what is the boundary between free expression and your obligation not to offend someone's religion.

In France, secularism, the French call it laicite, means that the government will not intervene in religious matters or stop publications that attack religions.

Freedom of speech is quite absolute to the extent that it even includes the right to blaspheme, which means you can publish anything that is offensive to any religion.

This didn't happen overnight. If you go back some centuries... to the Middle Ages, the Church was extremely powerful. If a clergyman was walking on the streets and if you didn't kneel and pay homage, you could be whipped, you could be arrested.

But over the centuries, with the Renaissance, with the assertion of nationhood... the balance shifted. Along the way, but not before there were several religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics, and between the kings and the churches, and of course the French Revolution... the principles of separation of state and religion, and the secularity of the state, developed.

Post-World War, that became a stronger principle. At the same time, France, along with some other countries, faced greater immigration post-World War II.

There are two principles worth noting about the French experience. One, the French state, the establishment, assumed that new immigrants will accept the French way of looking at freedom of speech and that they will also accept the French approach to secularity, meaning you could say what you like about any religion and the state will not intervene. They expected that all the new immigrants will accept that.

The government and the state did not engage in any active efforts to integrate the new immigrants, to see how their values can be integrated with the French approach, nor did they look at whether the French approach needed to be reconsidered and recalibrated in the light of the changing population. The French simply assumed that everyone will accept their traditional values.

And laicite meant that the state couldn't actually intervene, or seriously interact with different religions. They left the religions to themselves and they couldn't help bring people together, mould a common viewpoint, while protecting freedom of religion. Something like MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) interacting with RRG (Religious Rehabilitation Group) to promote... unity, to promote a better understanding of religion, would not be acceptable in France, because that means the state is getting involved. But it's very difficult without the state getting involved. The state doesn't tell people what to believe in - that must be for religious leaders - but the state has resources that can be brought in to help, to assist.

What is the result when the state takes a hands-off approach and if we took a hands-off approach? You have publications like Charlie Hebdo, which publish repulsive, highly offensive cartoons and articles on religion, in the name of free speech. And the French expect all religions to accept this.

The French are shaped by their own tradition, their own history. For them, this is new, they don't realise it.

But looking at it as an outsider, some will say that if you insult my religion, I am not going to stand by and say this is your right to free speech. I'm not going to accept that free speech means that you can give offence to my religion.

So France will have to find a way to bridge this gulf between its principles of laicite and freedom, and the expectations and beliefs of its people who don't accept that their religion should be offensively caricatured.

Every now and then, we get debates in Singapore - why is the Government not allowing free speech, why is the Government so protective or so defensive when it comes to race and religion? This is why we are defensive when it comes to race and religion. Because if we take a hands-off approach, then people will say since the Government won't do something, I will do something, and people are going to be upset with one another.

National harmony will be affected and the majority of people will be affected. Some groups will be saying yes, free speech, it's okay, I don't get offended, you can say what you like about the Prophet, the Pope or God. But many other people would feel offended. So that is why we take a different approach.

We take a secular approach, so when the Government looks at policies, we are secular. We don't favour any particular religion and we guarantee freedom of religion. We are secular, France is secular; we guarantee freedom of religion, France guarantees freedom of religion. But how we achieve it is different. France says that it prefers to achieve it by taking a hands-off approach; we are interventionist, we intervene.

Because we take the position, that the right to speak freely goes with the duty to act responsibly, the two must go together.

And, as a secular government, we are neutral in the treatment of all religions. We also do not allow any religion to be attacked or insulted by anybody else, whether majority or minority. Same rules.

We guarantee freedom of religion, the right of every person to practise his or her religious beliefs, and we protect everyone, majority or minority, from any threats, hate speech or violence.

That is the assurance one gets in Singapore. It is also what we need to do to make sure that we preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

Therefore, the Charlie Hebdo types of cartoons will not be allowed in Singapore, whether they are about Catholicism or Protestants or Islam or Hindus. Free speech for us stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion. There is a fence, and that fence protects religious sensitivities.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, if they were here, they would have been told to stop. If they didn't stop, ISD (Internal Security Department) would visit them, and they would have been arrested.

We believe that we can build a multi-religious, multiracial society based on trust, and only by taking a firm stance against hate speech, and dealing with all communities equally and fairly.

We have laws designed to ensure racial and religious harmony in Singapore. We update them regularly to make sure that they are relevant and effective as times change.

Many of you might know that we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) last year. One key amendment is that the minister can issue restraining orders to take effect immediately, removing the requirement for a 14-day notice period, because when it was introduced several decades ago, you had to give 14 days' notice. But today, if you give 14 days' notice, it goes around the world several times before 14 minutes are up. With social media and the Internet, a 14-day notice period doesn't work any more.

We've been noticing foreign groups intervening, using religion, not just in Singapore, but in many other countries. We didn't want to wait until that happened here, so we made amendments to the MRHA to say that foreign actors should not be exploiting our religious groups, imposing their values here.

Let Singapore Muslims, Singapore Christians, Singapore Hindus decide for themselves.

You can adapt the religiousbeliefs, but foreigners shouldn't intervene actively in the way wedo it.

Religious groups are now required to report all donations they receive from overseas, and we have rules. It doesn't prevent foreign leadership of our organisations, but we have rules restricting the number of foreigners who can be in committees in charge of religious institutions.

The Government can also issue a restraining order against religious groups to prohibit donations, or change the leadership, if we assess that foreigners are heavily influencing those groups.

In contrast to France, we maintain secularity, we guarantee freedom of religion by putting a limit to free speech. We'll say it cannot be used to attack religion, and actively intervene to put in policies which promote religious harmony.

I'm sharing this because France has been in the news, the French approach has been in the news, and in Singapore, the constant debate is about freedom of speech and the limits. So, we understand why 40 to 50 years ago, our first generation of leaders decided on these principles which are still valid.

Follow this link:

Free speech stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion: Shanmugam - The Straits Times

In a wide-ranging discussion earlier this week, Senator Ted Cruz 92 (RTX) discussed the 2020 Presidential Election, free speech on college campuses, and his own memories of Princeton.

Afterwards, his remarks drew both praise and rebuke from listeners. While some students criticized what they felt were softball questions, various organizers and attendees who spoke to The Daily Princetonian said they enjoyed the event.

Over 200 students attended the Wednesday-night event, which was hosted by Whig-Clio, College Republicans, and The Princeton Tory, a right-leaning campus publication. It was organized and moderated by Adam Hoffman 23, editor-in-chief of the Tory, president of College Republicans, and a former intern for Cruzs 2016 presidential campaign.

A prevailing topic of discussion was the state of free speech at Princeton and other college campuses.

There was a sense that we could disagree without hating each other, Cruz said of his time as an undergrad at Princeton. I worry at college campuses thats going away that people are afraid to speak out.

When the left tries to silence dissenting views, we should recognize that is a statement of weakness, Cruz continued. The censors are the ones who dont want to engage on the merits or substance.

This was in response to Hoffmans question of whether universities will be a place for open discussion and a hub of debate, or re-education camps of the soft totalitarian left. Hoffman prefaced this by claiming that classics professor Joshua Katz had been canceled by University administration after an op-ed regarding the Black Justice League, a Black student activist organization. He said that the University had shown in their response that unpopular opinions are to be met with top-down consequences.

While University President Christopher Eisgruber 83 told the Prince that he personally and strongly objected to Katzs characterization of the Black Justice League as a terrorist organization, Katz was not disciplined by the University for his comments.

Characterizing the political left as angry and shrill, Cruz encouraged listeners to defend free speech with a smile.

Hearing the questions framing and Cruzs response, Texas resident Kesavan Srivilliputhur 23 disagreed with Cruz and Hoffmans assessment of the left.

I voted for someone more liberal than Joe Biden [in the Democratic primary], Srivilliputhur said. But Im still willing to come to the table to talk. A lot of liberals were at this event to watch and to learn. I think thats something both Adam Hoffman and Ted Cruz ignored.

Rebekah Adams 21, a chemical and biological engineering concentrator who describes herself as openly conservative, found herself reassured after the advice Ted Cruz shared.

I think hes trying to say that you dont have to feel embarrassed about sharing your [opinions] and to have a sense of conviction behind them, she said.

Cruzs discussion was bookended with reflections on the election. Asked about the Democratic partys loss of House seats, Cruz felt the results showed a repudiation of the agenda of the radical left, and an indication that this country is fundamentally a center right country.

Later in the night, policy school concentrator Carson Maconga 22 asked Cruz when and under what conditions should Republicans acknowledge publicly that Biden had won the presidential election. Cruz has been criticized referring to a Trump concession as premature well after all major media outlets had called the election in Bidens favor.

Cruz answered by describing the moment he, as a 29-year old attorney working for the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign, had been the first to read and relay the implications of the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to Bushs Chief Legal Advisor James Baker, who then informed Bush of his win.

The legal proceedings need to be over, there needs to be a clear, undisputed winner, he said. When the matter was decided, when the matter was concluded, thats when [Bush] became president elect.

I think he didnt want to answer the question so he started talking about Al Gore and Bush, commented Emily Dale 23, a sophomore majoring in computer science who attended the event.

He does have a point in saying wait until the lawsuits are over, wait until youre 100 percent confident. But [the 2020 election] is simply not the same as 500 votes in Florida, Dale added. Its now multiple states that the legal challenge would have to win.

Republicans, as of Nov. 19, have filed 30 legal challenges to contest the results of the election. Nineteen have been withdrawn, settled, dismissed, or denied.

In between discussion of the election, Matthew Wilson 24, publicity chair of Whig-Clio and author for the Tory, felt that Cruzs points on the influence that the Chinese Communist Party had on American universities stood out.

Cruz labeled this influence as from a nation-state with billions or even trillions of dollars behind it engaged in the systematic effort to steal intellectual property, to steal technology, to engage in global espionage.

Many universities have been hopelessly naive, Cruz summarized. Theyre not used to being targeted by a nation state for systematic infiltration and theft.

One student, granted anonymity by The Prince, questioned the Senators characterization of espionage.

I have a hard time believing the magnitude of the problem that Ted Cruz has said, the student explained. If its just based on specific examples or assumptions, I dont think that Chinese students, especially if theyre the same Princeton students we are, should have no less of an equal access to education as we do.

However, Wilson, who has written on the topic, felt Cruzs framing of the issue was fair, noting that when discussing China, you have to differentiate the Chinese people from the Chinese Communist government.

I think Senator Cruz did that quite well, he said. As a person of Chinese descent, I feel thats very important.

Cruzs conversation was also punctuated with lighter moments.

Abraham Waserstein 21, a Residential College Advisor in Butler Colleges 1915 hall where Cruz lived as an undergraduate asked Cruz if he remembered his room number. Cruz did not, but promised to text his former roommate, David Panton 92, and ask.

Jane Mentzinger 22, president of the Princeton Debate Panel (PDP), asked Cruz what his favorite debate topic was and how his understanding of those topics changed. During his time at Princeton, Cruz was the education director of PDP and was ranked as the top speaker at the North American Debating Championship.

Cruz responded to the question by recounting his time in collegiate debate. Coming from a high school that didnt offer debate, Cruz spent the next four years virtually every single weekend debating, and loved it.

Cruz then spent eight minutes breaking down the debate strategies hed formulated with his debate partner, Panton strategies which were later applied to litigating in front of the Supreme Court and political arguments.

Rebecca Han 22, current treasurer of PDP, remarked that being able to recognize his references was a very cool experience.

It was quite surreal to hear someone of his name recognition speak about these very mundane concepts like a Prime Minister Rebuttal Speech or a Leader of Opposition Constructive Speech that you imagine are limited to a quite niche college community, she said.

Han is a senior news writer for the Prince.

Offering advice to conservative students who were eyeing a political career, Cruz stressed the importance of being truthful.

Weve all seen too many politicians that lie, that just tell us what we want to hear, and break their word. I wanted instead to be able to run on a record where if you wanted to know what I thought, you could point to the record, he stated. He recommended that students go build a record fighting for an issue that matters.

When looking back on the night, Terrell Seabrooks 21, vice president of Whig-Clio, noted that the attendees hed spoken to really enjoyed the discussion.

We want to be that political hub where regardless of your political views, you can come and hear whats being said in Washington. So thats why were really happy with tonight; we brought that conversation down to the student body, he stated.

Srivilliputhur and Han agreed with Seabrooks sentiments about member reaction, but they also raised questions over the selection of pre-submitted audience questions by event organizers.

They complained about censorship, how you cant speak your mind anymore, but they picked pretty softball questions, Texas resident Srivilliputhur said. Both my roommate and I had questions about what Ted Cruz does for bi-partisanship as someone represented by Cruz Id like to have known his opinions on current events or specific policies.

It would have been interesting to hear him speak on COVID, Han added.

Srivilliputhur, reflecting on the experience, noted that he may disagree with Ted Cruz on a lot of issues.

But from a human to human standpoint, Princetonian to Princetonian, he continued, this event did a good job of humanizing Ted Cruz and showing that hes just a guy like other people.

Hoffman declined to offer comment for this story.

Editors Note: After publishing this piece, The Daily Princetonian granted one of the interviewed students anonymity, following personal concerns brought to our attention.

View post:

Cruz '92 conversation ranges from lighthearted Princeton memories to free speech, the 'shrill' left - The Daily Princetonian

WASHINGTON, DC, November 19, 2020 In a blatant attack on free speech, human rights, and social justice movements, Secretary Mike Pompeo announced today that the State Department will designate the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as antisemitic and pledged to create a blacklist of organizations that support BDS. This comes alongside his visit to an illegal Israeli settlement and announcement that all goods made in illegal settlements will now be labeled as a product of Israel, reversing longstanding U.S. policy.

Make no mistake, this is not about Jewish safety. This is about shielding the Israeli government from accountability for its apartheid rule over Palestinians. Especially given decades of U.S. government complicity and unwillingness to hold Israel accountable, only global, grassroots pressure will force Israel to abide by international law. As a Jewish and proudly pro-BDS organization, we know that using our grassroots power to fight for equality, justice and freedom for Palestinians is a powerful expression of our own Jewish tradition. Working toward Palestinian freedom is not and never has been antisemitic.

This attack on the BDS movement made alongside the decision to label products from illegal Israeli settlements as being from Israel is a last ditch attempt from the outgoing Trump administration to give every gift possible to the far right in Israel and to white Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. Pompeo is creating an opaque blacklist to terrify organizations critical of Israel into silence. Every person who believes in free speech and in the rights of people to pressure their governments to end injustices should be speaking out against this authoritarian move by the Trump administration.

Jewish Voice for Peace Actionis an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(4) political and advocacy partner organization of Jewish Voice for Peace. It is a multiracial, intergenerational movement of Jews and allies working towards justice and equality in Israel/Palestine by transforming U.S. policy.

Excerpt from:

Stephanie Fox and Beth Miller: Pompeo Tramples on International Law, Free Speech, and Human Rights With His Support for Israeli Settlements - YubaNet

Law360 (November 24, 2020, 7:35 PM EST) -- A 12-foot-high inflatable rat with red eyes and fangs is to unions "what the American flag is to United States citizens," three Illinois-based labor federations told the National Labor Relations Board, claiming a member union's display outside an RV trade show was protected by the Constitution.

In an amicus brief filed on Monday, the Illinois branch of the AFL-CIO, along with the Chicago Federation of Labor and the Chicago and Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, said the International Union of Operating Engineers was allowed to display "Scabby the Rat" outside the trade show, even though the company targeted by...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Continued here:

Unions Tell NLRB That Inflatable Rat Display Is Free Speech - Law360

While 61 percent of Americans say that athletes have a right to free speech and it is their decision to speak out for social justice, 35 percent call sports their "escape"and don't want to see any commentary other than sports. In addition, 36 percent say that athletes speaking out hinders their desire to watch games.

These were the findings of a Seton Hall Sports Poll conducted November 13-16 among 1,506 American adults, geographically spread across the country.The Poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent.

On the question of athletes exercising free speech and making their own decision to speak out, only 15 percent disagreed compared to the 61 percent who agreed that players held that right. Among self-described sports fans, those who agreed that players held that right to speech was 69 percent. On the question of sports being an escape and not wanting to see any commentary on subjects other than sports, almost an equal number agreed and disagreed. While 36 percent said they saw sports as an escape and did not want to hear commentary from athletes outside of sports, 37 percent felt otherwise. Among sports fans, however, 46 percent said they saw sports as an escape and would rather not see commentary outside of sports, while 34 percent felt otherwise.

Does Social Justice Commentary from Athletes Hinder the Desire To Watch Sports?

Does social justice commentary from athletes hinder the desire to watch sports? For 35 percent the answer was yes, but 39 percent said that athletes speaking out on social justice issues is not a hindrance. The rest - about a quarter of the population in each case - neither agreed nor disagreed.

"It marks a fine line for many sports fans, probably across the political spectrum,"saidProfessor Charles Grantham, Director of the Center for Sport Management within the Stillman School of Business, which oversees the Seton Hall Sports Poll. "What many Americans seem not to understand is that despite their fame, our black athletes, male and female, have their own histories and experiences with police, mourn the losses of those who look like them and feel the potential dangers of forthcoming encounters.They are committed to raising the consciousness of America with regard to systemic racism and social injustice."

"Leagues really need to note the fact, however, that about a third of the population is uncomfortable with these displays of free speech,"said Stillman Professor of Marketing and Poll Methodologist Daniel Ladik. "That's a minority, but it's sizeable if you are trying to sell a product. A number of the leagues have already taken some action but need to continue to explain to consumers why this speech is important."

Why Are TV Ratings Down?

Television ratings for both the NFL regular season and the NBA finals are and were down this year, and respondents were asked their opinion why. Twenty-eight percent said they thought that fans are turned off by the social justice efforts by athletes and their leagues, and 24 percent said it was because attention was focused on the November elections. Twelve percent said it was because too many sports were available while 35 percent had no opinion or did not know.

As To the Strange NBA Season

The shortened NBA season, with the playoffs staged before no fans and in a bubble, elicited fan reaction in the poll. Asked if the finals were just as entertaining as in previous years, only 22 percent agreed, with 21 percent disagreeing. Fifty-seven percent neither agreed nor disagreed, a large number perhaps reflected by the decline in viewership this year. Asked if the finals were dull with no fans in attendance, 25 percent agreed and 15 percent disagreed. Again, a large percentage of the respondents (59 percent) neither agreed nor disagreed. Asked if it was difficult to follow the NBA Finals because there were too many other sports on TV, only 15 percent agreed while 21 percent disagreed and 62 percent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Only 26% Think NFL Will Make it To Super Bowl

Asked if the they thought it doubtful the NFL will make it through the playoffs and complete the Super Bowl in this year of Coronavirus, 26 percent agreed. Among self-described sports fans the number of those who doubt that the NFL will successfully complete the season moved up to 29 percent; however, an equal number of sports fans (29 percent) felt the opposite and did not doubt the season will successfully conclude. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed.

"It is a different kind of year,"said Grantham, the former executive director of the the National Basketball Players Association. "That which seemed certain in years past now is the subject of doubt. The Super Bowl is the most watched sporting and media event in the United States. The fact that 29 percent of sports fans think the Super Bowl itself may be in question is astounding."

About the PollThe Seton Hall Sports Poll, conducted regularly since 2006, is performed by the Sharkey Institute within the Stillman School of Business. This poll was conducted online by YouGov Plc. using a national representative sample weighted according to gender, age, ethnicity, education, income and geography, based on U.S. Census Bureau figures. Respondents were selected from YouGovs opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S residents.This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. The Seton Hall Sports Poll has been chosen for inclusion in iPoll by Cornells Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and its findings have been published everywhere from USA Today, ESPN, The New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters to CNBC, NPR, Yahoo Finance, Fox News and many points in between.

Media: Michael Ricciardelli, Associate Director of Media Relations, Seton Hall University michael.ricciardelli@shu.edu,908-447-3034; Marty Appel,AppelPR@gmail.com

Click here for the results.

About Seton Hall UniversityOne of the country's leading Catholic universities, Seton Hall has been showing the world what great minds can do since 1856. Home to nearly 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students and offering more than 90 rigorous academic programs, Seton Halls academic excellence has been singled out for distinction by The Princeton Review, U.S. News & World Report and Bloomberg Businessweek.

Seton Hall embraces students of all religions and prepares them to be exemplary servant leaders and global citizens. In recent years, the University has achieved extraordinary success. Since 2009, it has seen record-breaking undergraduate enrollment growth and an impressive 110-point increase in the average SAT scores of incoming freshmen. In the past decade, Seton Hall students and alumni have received more than 30 Fulbright Scholarships as well as other prestigious academic honors, including Boren Awards, Pickering Fellowships, Udall Scholarships and a Rhodes Scholarship. The University is also proud to be among themost diverse national Catholic universitiesin the country.

During the past five years, the University has invested more than $165 million in new campus buildings and renovations. And in 2015, Seton Hall launched a School of Medicine as well as a College of Communication and the Arts. The Universitys beautiful main campus in suburban South Orange, N.J. is only 14 miles from New York City offering students a wealth of employment, internship, cultural and entertainment opportunities. Seton Hall's nationally recognized School of Law is located prominently in downtown Newark. The Universitys Interprofessional Health Sciences (IHS) campus in Clifton and Nutley, N.J. opened in the summer of 2018. The IHS campus houses the University's College of Nursing, School of Health and Medical Sciences and the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University.

For more information, visit http://www.shu.edu.

See the original post:

61% Agree with Athletes' Right to Speak Out for Social Justice; But More than a Third Say It Hinders Desire To Watch Games, Ruins Sports as 'Escape' -...