A quick drive through Denvers Lowry neighborhood late last week was akin to a voyage through a haven of tranquility and quiet, with rows of homes fronted by tidy lawns and smiling, helmeted families biking down tree-lined streets.

But just 48 hours prior, this community on the citys east side was at the center of a sharp dispute over the limits of free expression in the midst of what is shaping up to be one of the nastiest, bare-knuckle election seasons in recent memory.

In the current climate, with a lot of these social justice issues in the spotlight, I think it is important for our family to show our support and beliefs in these issues, said Melissa Steele, a 14-year resident of the neighborhood, who has a sign in her yard declaring support for Black lives, womens rights and science. I think its a time when we need to be dealing with these issues.

But the Lowry Community Master Association, the homeowners association that oversees the nearly 2,600 homes that sit on former site of the Lowry Air Force Base, wasnt as open to the idea. It sent letters to Steele and some of her neighbors telling them they had to take down their signs per the HOAs policy forbidding unauthorized displays of any kind outside of a strictly defined political season.

After a few headlines and news stories on the controversy, the Lowry board of directors in a special meeting Wednesday night reversed themselves and amended their sign code.

Given the exigent circumstances and the boards desire to help our community express support for issues they endorse, the LCMA has amended the community signage policy to allow two yard signs, the board said in a statement. This policy is effective today, September 3, 2020.

State law leaves sign regulation largely up to homeowner associations, except from 45 days prior to an election to seven days after the vote, during which citizens can display a sign that carries a message intended to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the election of a candidate, the recall of a public official, or the passage of a ballot issue.

Last weeks about-face will likely not be the last time HOAs and politics clash, especially as this Novembers election approaches amid a deadly global pandemic and protests and violence over racial justice issues. Molly Foley-Healy, an attorney who has long represented homeowners associations in Colorado, said the governing bodies are in a no-win situation when it comes to balancing the desire to enhance property values by maintaining a consistent aesthetic while at the same time allowing homeowners to express themselves.

Because of the culture wars were having and the extreme passion people feel on any side of these issues, for an HOA board to attempt to police these positions is unenviable, to say the least, she said. I would call on all owners living in HOAs to be sensitive to their neighbors and their board of directors.

In most cases, HOAs arent targeting what the sign says, Foley-Healy said, but the existence of the sign.

But Heather Luehrs, a Lowry resident, said she received a letter to take down her yard signs only after she recently planted a Black Lives Matter display in her grass. She said she had had a sign welcoming people to the neighborhood on display for two years before that.

What saddened me is that the Black Lives Matter sign got this going, she said.

In an email, the Lowry Community Master Association said it enforces its sign policy without regard to politics or positions, issuing violations this year for displays supporting teachers and health care workers, graduation acknowledgments, and pleas to conserve water.

The dispute in Lowry is far from the first of its kind. Three years ago, a Loveland man made news when he refused his HOAs orders to take down an early American flag painted on wood that was hanging on his home. Eight years before that faceoff, a woman fought her HOA in Boulder after it told her to remove a sign she had put in front of her house proclaiming her opposition to mass slaughter in the Darfur region of Sudan.

And in 2006, an HOA in Pagosa Springs apologized to a couple for threatening to fine them $25 a day for displaying a wreath that had been fashioned into the shape of the peace sign. The wreath had been characterized by HOA leaders as a divisive symbol that violated the subdivision rules against displaying signs or advertisements.

Bridget Sebern, executive director of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Community Associations Institute, said homeowners agree to HOA rules when they move into an association-governed community.

While some of these rules may conflict with unfettered expression, these rules are in place to preserve the character of a community, protect property values and meet the established expectations of residents, she said. One persons free speech might be a neighbors eyesore. In all cases of disagreement, we encourage open dialogue, flexibility and, when possible, compromise.

Luehrs said she hopes the brouhaha in Lowry last week will prompt vigorous debate and discussion that leads to consensus on whats acceptable and whats not when it comes to wearing ones politics on ones sleeve.

This doesnt mean its the end of the conversation it means its the beginning of the conversation, she said.

Read this article:

Denver neighborhood tiff over yard signs is just the beginning in year filled with polarizing issues - The Denver Post

Suresh Chavhanke, the Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News, a Hindi channel, recently claimed to have done an expose alleging that the Civil Services have been infiltrated by the Muslim community. What he terms asBureaucracy Jihad, is a classic instance of hate speech. While students of JamiaMillia Islamia approached the High Court alleging that the said program endangers their life and liberty and makes them targets of communal attacks, others approached the Supreme Court. This explainer deals with what hate speech is all about.

THE Blacklaws Dictionary defines hate speech as, Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.

The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a) provides the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, under article 19(2), the constitution also provides for the reasonable restrictions against free speechin the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Hate speech constitutes a criminal charge under Section 153A, which is the offence of promoting communal disharmony or feelings of hatred between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

153B of the Indian Penal Code categorises the offence of promoting religious, racist, linguistic, community or caste hatred or incites any religious, caste or any other disharmony or enmity within India, through any speech either in written form or spoken. Section 298 of the IPC, similarly, classifies the offence of uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. Likewise, Section 505 of the IPC, criminalises the act of delivering speeches that incite violence. Sections 295A and 509A also have similar provisions. In 2014, while addressing a Public interest Litigation seeking guidelines for regulating Hate Speech, the Supreme Court made certain observations.

Hate speech is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression.

The 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, also criminalises hate speech by election candidates. In 2014, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court of India[2014(11)SCC477], seeking guidelines on hate speech during elections. The Supreme Court observed that hate speech attempts to marginalise individuals on the basis of their membership in a group. This impacts such people socially by diminishing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, the Court observed, lays the groundwork for aggravated attacks on the vulnerable communities in the future. This weakens the ability of people to participate fully in a democracy. The Court also observed that existing laws in India were sufficient to tackle hate speeches.The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution, the Court said.

These laws have often been misused to victimise artists, journalists, and activists by communal forces, on the pretext of causing communal disharmony. For instance, activists like Harsh Mander have been accused of delivering hate speech, despite the written text of his speech being available in which he advocates peace and love among religious communities. On the other hand, politicians of the ruling party who openly called for shooting peaceful anti-Citizen Amendment Act protesters have not been arrested or tried under the prevailing hate speech laws.

There is no internationally agreed definition for hate speech. According to the United Nations, hate speech is defined as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factors.

it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to restrict free speech, a proximate and direct nexus must be found with any imminent danger to the community.

International human rights law has set standards by which states are supposed to adhere to strong directives against hate speech in their respective jurisdictions.

Even though the essential right to free speech is a fundamental right, it also has certain reasonable restrictions that go with it. As per Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right of freedom of speech can be regulated in order to honour the rights of others and in the interest of public order, public health or morals. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR also declares that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prevented by law. Similarly, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides reasonable duties and restrictions during the exercise of ones fundamental right to free speech.

The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speechprovides that member states must identify and support actors who challenge hate speech. They are also mandated to build capacity and develop policies to address hate speech. The Rabat Plan of Action, that was adopted by experts after a series of consultations that were convened by the United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) derived authoritative conclusions and strong recommendations for the implementation of Article 20(2) of the ICCPR.

In Europe, the Constitutions of Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, alongside the provisions of the right to free speech, also prescribe reasonable restrictions for the same. These restrictions follow the standards provided under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. These countries, further break down the constitutional provisions through other legal instruments regulating media laws, laws on equality and non-discrimination, laws to protect national, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities etc. There are also specific laws to suit the regional requirements within countries like Germany and Italy.

In 2017, Germany passed a law by which social media was bound to pay a fine if they did not take down hateful content in time.

The Supreme Court of Canada opined that hate speech laws are indeed a part of the global commitment to eradicate racism and communal disharmony.

In 2018, Switzerland passed a law against hate speech and discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community.

In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act,1998, provides that everyone has the right to free speech. However, this free speech is regulated with the reasonable restrictions clause that includesformalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as prescribed by law and is necessary for a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Section 4 of Public Order Act, 1986 in the UK makes it an offencefor any person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or indulge in behaviour, or distribute or display to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Interestingly, the United States of America does not have a law against hate speech which is protected under the First Amendment Act.

Through the Press Council of India Act, 1978, the Press Council of India (PCI) was constituted. The PCI is the regulating body that ensures that the press functions in a tasteful manner, in accordance with journalistic standards. The PCI has a code of conduct for journalists that aims to foster the maintenance of high professional standards, public taste and respect for the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. On the basis of these codes of conduct, the PCI can also censor newspapers or news agencies. In fact, the PCI has the power of a civil court that can summon and examine people and evidence in the same nature of a judicial proceeding.

Television news, on the other hand, is regulated by the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. This act governs the code of conduct of the operation of cable television networks in India. This code also prohibitsthe broadcast of news that violates decency or attacks community or religious sentiments. These guidelines are called the programme code.

Any violation of the program code is investigated and taken cognisance of by the Inter-Ministerial Committee.

Hate speech is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. This issue was considered in the case ofCanada v Taylor,[1990] 3 SCR 892where the constitutional validity of hate speech laws was challenged on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. It was held that hate and propaganda contribute little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in the quest for truth, the promotion of individual selfdevelopment, or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged. The Court also observed that it undermines the dignity and selfworth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and openmindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality. The Supreme Court of Canada opined that hate speech laws are indeed a part of the global commitment to eradicate racism and communal disharmony.

.activists like Harsh Mander have been accused of delivering hate speech, despite the written text of his speech being available in which he advocates peace and love among religious communities.

The Indian Supreme Court had also referred to this judgement in 2014. The Court had also observed the holding of another observation by the Supreme Court by which they said thatthe effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. In the case ofRangarajan etc., v P. Jagjivan Ram 1989(2)SCC 574, it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to restrict free speech, a proximate and direct nexus must be found with any imminent danger to the community. This nexus cannot be far fetched, remote, or conjectural.The Court held that our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. It should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to public interests.

(Ujjaini Chatterji is an Advocate based in Delhi and a regular contributor with The Leaflet.)

See the article here:

Why is free speech different from hate speech? - TheLeaflet - The Leaflet

Another defense of sorts has been to claim that even this cancel-culture lite is not dangerous, because it has no real effect. When, for instance, 153 intellectuals signed an open letter in Harpers arguing for the value of free speech (I was one of them), we were told that we were comfortable bigwigs chafing at mere criticism, as if all that has been happening is certain people being taken to task, as opposed to being shamed and stripped of honors.

Read: A deeply provincial view of free speech

To the extent that the new progressives acknowledge that some prominent people have been unfairly tarredincluding the food columnist Alison Roman, the data analyst David Shor, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art senior curator Gary Garrelsthey often insist that these are mere one-off detours rather than symptoms of a general cultural sea change.

For example, in July I tweeted that I (as well as my Bloggingheads sparring partner Glenn Loury) have been receiving missives since May almost daily from professors living in constant fear for their career because their opinions are incompatible with the current woke playbook. Then various people insisted that I was, essentially, lying; they simply do not believe that anyone remotely reasonable has anything to worry about.

However, hard evidence points to a different reality. This year, the Heterodox Academy conducted an internal member survey of 445 academics. Imagine expressing your views about a controversial issue while at work, at a time when faculty, staff, and/or other colleagues were present. To what extent would you worry about the following consequences? To the hypothetical My reputation would be tarnished, 32.68 percent answered very concerned and 27.27 percent answered extremely concerned. To the hypothetical My career would be hurt, 24.75 percent answered very concerned and 28.68 percent answered extremely concerned. In other words, more than half the respondents consider expressing views beyond a certain consensus in an academic setting quite dangerous to their career trajectory.

So no one should feign surprise or disbelief that academics write to me with great frequency to share their anxieties. In a three-week period early this summer, I counted some 150 of these messages. And what they reveal is a very rational culture of fear among those who dissent, even slightly, with the tenets of the woke left.

The degree of sheer worry among the people writing to me is poignant, and not just among nontenured faculty. (They write to me privately, and for that reason I will not share names.) One professor notes, Even with tenure and authority, I worry that students could file spurious Title IX complaints or that students could boycott me or remove me as Chair. I have no reason to suppose that he is being dramatic, because exactly this, he says, happened to his predecessor.

View post:

Academics Are Really Worried About Cancel Culture - The Atlantic

Shelley Walia

Professor Emeritus, English & Cultural Studies, Panjab University

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King Jr.

In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, John Rawls A Theory of Justice had a long-lasting impact on American anti-statists and British egalitarians, as well as on the larger issues of civil disobedience, international justice and commitment of the state and citizens in capitalist welfare states. Such a political philosophy aimed to legitimise political change by appealing to public intellectuals as moral agents of reform.

This development occurred in a culture of racism, bigotry and ultra-nationalism that has dominated the democracies ever since. Plagued by the crackdown on dissent, the situation in many countries is exacerbated by uncertain employment, housing and healthcare. A prejudiced leadership, partial media and the demise of the Opposition has given rise to the increasing intrusion of the private sphere.

Varavara Rao, poet-activist with a singular voice of protest, languishes in jail. GN Saibaba, a disabled professor, remains incarcerated with no trial in sight. With baseless and flimsy evidence, their lock-up violates civil liberties and subverts the constitutional order. Some fine scholars and writers come under police and judicial harassment for standing up for the deprived and the marginalised. It becomes a matter of anguish for the nation when a citizens fundamental right to life and liberty is denied.

However, radical change is optimistically envisaged with the possibility of producing a politics of freedom and resistance, with the hope of finding solutions to the nagging issues confronting a democracy. The defence of bona fide beliefs of an individual in a democracy screams for attention in an environment of pervert rational thinking and brash exercise of Orwellian surveillance for absolute ideological control.

The last few months have been exceptionally volatile in the history of the democratic working of public institutions. Democracy and free speech are under siege. For example, Prashant Bhushan, in declining to tender an apology to the Supreme Court, has secured his dignity and his sense of responsibility to the future of Indias democracy. His is a moral act defined by affirming the inviolability of free speech, public values and truth that resonate in Vaclav Havels statement on speaking truth to power: When I speak of living within truth, I naturally do not have in mind only products of conceptual thought, such as a protest or a letter written by a group of intellectuals. It can be any means by which a person or a group revolts against manipulation. Such a stand against the depravity of the political moment is an earnest attempt to uphold the power of the powerless and the fairness of justice.

Bhushan has not shown any disrespect for the judicial system, but has peacefully redirected the attention of the nation to the quality of justice and the dignity of our public institutions. A civil, humanistic public action against the jeopardising of democratic institutions cannot be anything but ethical to the core and, unquestionably, not invite the over-reaction of criminal reprimand through a self-deprecating contempt order.

Recent social and political upheavals in the wake of sectarian violence or the increasing infringement of public space has raised questions about the future of liberty and dignity, freedom and justice, calling for a scrutiny of the working of the Reserve Bank, judiciary, police or civil services. With politics taking on the character of regressive and unabashedly unconstitutional right-wing intimidation through the misuse of public institutions, public oppression becomes acute and expectations of the institutional foundations of our democracy fail. At such critical moments, the critical-minded progressive thinkers rise to counter any form of unanimity or mindless obedience to the capricious assertions of the leadership, fighting for the survival of a culture that reflects on deeper ethical and social concerns.

It is a fact that radical social transformations have been brought about not by totalitarian means, but by peoples participation in offering resistance or critiques of the retrogressive functioning of institutions and the arbitrary suppression of any opposition. The end of debate is apparently the outcome of the end of history syndrome that has dominated the liberal democracies of the world.

The liberal recipe stands botched in ushering a new world order promised by the happy birth of a global community. History brings us face to face with the threat of despotism, provoking public intellectuals to rise up against the obsessive use of raw power. At the irreducible existential moment of economic or military crisis when the row between democracy and fascism, freedom and tyranny becomes an unrelenting political encounter, they advance an alternative vision with a global appeal of a new reinvention of participatory democracy and free thinking.

The historical necessity of the times inspires the freedom-loving people to adopt strategies of non-violent resistance and non-cooperation, thereby echoing an ethical dimension of the politics of living in truth with a sense of individual responsibility.

The lesson to be learnt from Rawls, Havel or historians like Howard Zinn is to exist in the embrace of robust forms of free speech practical and responsible enough to create an environment with a commitment to challenge the state apparatus and institutions that it undemocratically uses for its authority.

Not surprisingly, intellectuals like Arundhati Roy, Ramachandra Guha, Harsh Mander or Prashant Bhushan have opened spaces for new civil and democratic politics in India, underpinned by notions of truth, accountability and civility. They bring their adverse stand into the shaping of the world through their scrutiny of the social and political world with a belief in their sense of belongingness to the state free from any sense of alienation or antagonism.

Why then should the state feel a sense of disquiet at resistance movements hurling ideas of emancipation and justice? It is wrong to presume that autocracies can wipe out the diversity of political thought. The spectre of Marx hangs on the contemporary world and dialectical materialism remains an antidote to ideological unilateralism, a condemnation of the systems that have usurped socialism and progressive movements. Indeed, the constitutional values of liberalism cannot be ignored for long.

See the original post:

Crackdown on free speech a threat to justice - The Tribune India

The sensitivity meter in Stonington needs adjustment. Communities are concerned that the level of violence allowed on the streets of our cities has progressed from legitimate protest to lawlessness when criminal elements like Antifa, unchallenged,run wild with looting, burning and life-threatening actions.

The two reposted twitter messages were from American citizens with a different opinion than the whining liberals, who prefer to talk over and drown out the First Amendment. The first twitter message could have just as well been directed towards the conduct of the two accused in the hotel incident. Have any of the critics asked police commission member Bob OShaughnessy? Besides "We the People" have had enough. That is pretty much the content of both of those articles.

The Democratic Party is desperate, standing on the wall at the Alamo knowing the outcome.I have known Bob since 1970 and have worked with him and for him. He is a retired Connecticut State Police captain and since his retirement has done more civic volunteer work than all his critics combined. This patriot means to draw a line in the sand.

James L. Miller

Retired Connecticut state trooper

Salem

Read more:

Standing by O'Shaughnessy, and for free speech - theday.com

At the very least, Syracuse Universitys decision to place a professor on administrative leave for referring to COVID-19 as the Wuhan Flu and the Chinese Communist Party Virus demonstrates the administrations oversensitivity and willingness to fold under pressure from the speech police. At most, it represents SUs zealous crackdown on free speech.

In their joint statement emailed to the SU community on Tuesday, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Karin Ruhlandt and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu pillory one of their own staff members for his bold decision to place these terms in his syllabus.

Racist, xenophobic, bigoted and hateful are the allegations the two administrators circuitously levy against this professor.

So its hateful now to attribute to an illness the name of the geological region where it originated? In that case, infections like Ebola, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and Zika (just to name a few) need renaming as well.

Naming illnesses after places is time-saving and allows for greater distinction between similar diseases. While examples do exist of highly distasteful disease naming-schemes, like AIDS at times referred to as gay-related immune deficiency, the naming process is almost never intended to humiliate or shame a group of people.

In all fairness, very few people likely desire to have their neck of the woods be associated with disease and death. Folks who share names with hurricanes are frequently reminded by meteorologists not to take it personally. Their justification? More easily recognizable storm names generate greater public awareness: more lives saved.

Nevertheless, SU administrators are not interested in reasonable explanations. They have, instead, decided that labeling COVID-19 after the totalitarian regime that actively suppressed life-saving, early reporting isnt a righteous calling-out of a malicious government but an act of vicious racism.

How many lives and livelihoods could have been saved had the Chinese government sounded the alarms in December when cases of this new virus started piling up? Blood is on the hands of the Chinese government, but dont let SU administrators catch you acknowledging that reality.

Published on August 25, 2020 at 10:43 pm

More here:

Opinion | Putting professor on leave is a crackdown on free speech - The Daily Orange

SALT LAKE CITY A summer of protests highlighting the First Amendments protection of free speech has culminated in a movement highlighting the Second Amendments protection of the right to bear arms.

Members of Utah Citizens United have begun showing up at protests against police brutality carrying semi-automatic rifles.

Critics said that has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.

So what happens when those two constitutionally protected rights seem to conflict with one another?

As the KSL Investigators learned, legal precedent has some catching up to do.

Provo native Casey Robertson formed Utah Citizens Alarm after a protest in his hometown on June 29 ended in a shooting when a protester opened fire at a driver whose vehicle was being blocked at an intersection.

It hit home that the violence is now here, Robertson explained.

That is when he took to Facebook and put out the call for support.

Who wants to come down there with me and show em were not going to put up with violence in our town, he said about his Facebook post.

Members of UCA have since attended rallies across Utah, oftentimes wearing military fatigues, tactical gear and carrying AR-15 style rifles. Many also wear face coverings, making them unidentifiable.

They show up to protests, Robertson said, to show solidarity with law enforcement.

We back law enforcement 100% as a group and they appreciate that because law enforcement is getting a horrible, terrible name right now, Robertson said. Were simply there to be eyes and ears for the police and just be a deterrent for violence. Thats it.

When asked if he encourages members of his group to come armed to protests, Robertson said, We encourage people to be aware of the laws and follow them closely.

Im not sorry if were intimidating. Im not. Utah citizens want to be intimidating. We dont want violence here in Utah. We do not want chaos and anarchy, Robertson continued.

While violence and property damage have occurred, of the dozens of protests that have taken place in Utah this summer, most have been peaceful.

While Robertson and his members argue their presence at protests absolutely deters violence, property damage and destruction, activists like Josianne Petit believe what UCAs presence really deters is people from exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

Petit started an organization for parents of black children called Mama and Papa Panthers. She has used her voice to speak out at many protests this summer.

They say theyre there to keep the peace. Well, the way my group and like groups have shown that were here for non-violent protests is we dont bring enough ammo to take out a small village, Petit said. They are weapons of war. They are not made to disarm or disable an opponent.

Petit is passionate and outspoken about the need for police reform and the need to end police brutality. She is demanding change and knows doing so is her First Amendment right.

Were just asking for the same treatment when we engage with police officers as white people have come to expect, Petit said. Its the cause of liberation.

She said the presence of heavily armed, masked men and women at largely non-violent protests has resulted in serious fear. In some cases, the concern for protesters personal safety is so concerning, she said, they are shying away from exercising their First Amendment right.

Their tactic is working, right? Its silencing the vast majority of black voices here in Utah, Petit said.

Shes equally worried about another intimidation tactic she said is employed by members of UCA.

They have made a point of stalking us at every single event that we hold, she said. They just monitor our Facebook page and if we say were going to an event, they show up.

Robertson admitted that as his group grows, its expanding focusing on intelligence gathering.

We have quite a few people that have stepped up and that have created false accounts where we can infiltrate some of their conversations and some of their planning and groups, Robertson said.

The KSL Investigators went to Jess Anderson, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, to get his perspective on UCA and similar groups.

We appreciate their support for law enforcement, Anderson said specifically about Utah Citizens Alarm, However, its not done with the proper training. Its not done with a proper perspective or understanding.

He made it clear: when it comes to law enforcements interactions with UCA and groups like it, there is no working relationship.

Listen, we didnt request you. Youre not the backup to the police, Anderson explained. Theyve been respectful of that so far, but it causes concern to the law enforcement community just because it puts us in a very peculiar situation, knowing and understanding that if something were to happen, guess whos caught right in the middle of this? Its now the police [who] have an armed standoff.

As for UCAs aim of intelligence gathering, Anderson said, We, in the policing world, have all of our access to good intelligence, to which we are using in a most respectful way.

At what point do intimidation tactics cross the line and infringe on protesters Constitutional rights? University of Utah law professor RonNell Andersen Jones said theres little clear legal precedent.

Certainly the Supreme Court has recognized that if someone engages in a behavior that rises to the level of being what the court calls a true threat, then it loses its First Amendment protection and your capacity to express yourself with a weapon in your hand changes. You dont have the ability to continue to invoke Constitutional protection and the government can regulate you from threatening other people in that way.

However, the courts have not decided if a large number of firearms at a public protest rises to the level of a true threat.

The bare existence of the firearm on their person under Utah State law isnt necessarily a threat against another person. Its an exercise of the open carry right, said Jones. Were still waiting for jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court that helps us to understand the boundaries of firearms in public.

Case law may not be far away.

There are lots of test cases that seem to be emerging all across the country as the Black Lives Matter movement and other protest movements are generating these conflicts on a scale that we havent seen before, said Jones.

Its actually, in some respects, quite remarkable that weve had since 1790, to have some of these conflicts emerge and havent had the chance to sort of tussle with them, she said. But its also a uniquely modern problem with modern firearms and with modern protest movements. And so sometimes it takes time for the Constitution to catch up with the problems that we face in the real world.

Casey Robertson said his group believes in the right to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest.

We dont exist to show up at protests, said Robertson. However, weve seen that these protests tend to get violent and Antifa is working through these protest groups to get their point across which is disruption and anarchy.

Antifa short for anti-fascists is a political group with no leader and no clear organization. Their ideology embraces violence as a tool to combat far-right extremists and white nationalist groups.

And its who Robertson believes is the real enemy of America.

Anderson, however, said Antifa is currently no cause for concern in Utah.

As far as identifying who those somewhat terrorist groups are, or otherwise really anarchistic groups, we do keep a close watch on that, Anderson said. By and large, we do not see that being an issue or a problem to the point where its causing us complete panic or concern.

Less than two months after Robertson created the Utah Citizens Alarm page on Facebook, it had attracted nearly 20,000 members.

Facebook shut down the page on Aug. 19, along with nearly 1,000 other accounts. The social networking company said the move was aimed at limiting violent rhetoric tied to anarchists, political militias and followers of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory.

According to NBC News, Facebooks policy states, Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts associated with these movements and organizations will be removed when they discuss potential violence.

Robertson said that will not deter his members. They created a website to continue operations online.

UCA is still here. We are still strong. This Facebook thing in no way will affect the momentum that we have created, Robertson said in a video posted on Monday.

Robertson said he is working on more formally organizing the group by providing members with training and legal support.

He also said UCA is more thoroughly vetting its members and hopes to change their image.

As weve grown, weve realized that an AR may not be the best thing to be carrying in a situation like that, Robertson said.

Visit link:

KSL Investigates: Does armed protest have a chilling effect on free speech? - KSL.com

LANSING, Mich. Lawsuits have been filed that accuse Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of violating the First Amendment by restricting the number of people who can attend political rallies and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson of violating election law by allowing online application for absentee ballots.

The suits were filed by the Election Integrity Fund and One Nation Michigan.

The suit against the governor claims Whitmers executive orders limiting the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings virtually eliminate retail politics. It also takes issue with the governors ability to change the rules at any time without notice, claiming that is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The suit against the secretary of state claims Benson made it possible to request absentee ballots online, violating state election law the requires a voters signature on such applications. The suit also claims Bensons plan to send applications to all voters is also a violation of state law that requires voters to ask for an application.

The lawsuits were filed in the Michigan Court of Claims in Lansing and asks the court to give the suits a quick hearing and to stop the governors and secretarys actions.

See the original post:

Lawsuits accuse Gov. Whitmer of squelching free speech and Sec. Of State Benson of violating election law - Fox17

Free speech is under threat in the United States. Thats what numerous speakers have told the Republican convention, which wraps up Thursday night.

Theyre right. And the biggest threat comes from the man theyre re-nominating for president, Donald J. Trump.Trump has called major media outlets enemies of the people, warning that he might withhold their broadcast licenses. He encouraged supporters at one of his rallies to assault protesters, promising to pay any legal bills that resulted. And he ordered the removal of peaceful demonstrators from the front of the White House, all so he could pose for a photo-op while holding a Bible.

You havent heard anything about that at the GOP convention, of course, where every attack is blamed on the other side. And thats the biggest problem for free speech in our country right now. We all want the right to speak, but were perfectly happy to deny it to somebody else. And that isnt free speech at all.

So numerous presenters at the convention railed against cancel culture, complaining that many Americans are prevented or discouraged from speaking their minds. At universities, especially, students find themselves suppressing their beliefs to fit into the acceptable groupthink, as Tiffany Trump, the presidents daughter, declared on Tuesday night.

Thats true. According to a wide swath of research, growing numbers of Americans bite their tongues for fear of being canceled on social media. Disagreement is fine; indeed, its the lifeblood of democracy. But when we seek to obliterate our opponents, rejecting not just their ideas but their humanity, we make honest discussion impossible.

But guess who is the Canceler-in-Chief? Donald Trump, of course. To Trump, political challengers arent simply people who disagree with him; theyre losers, dummies, morons, and more. He has called Mexicans rapists, women pigs, and African countries shitholes. Almost every day brings another vile presidential tweet, denigrating someones intellect, gender, or racial background.

Yet speaker after speaker at the GOP convention condemned opponents for cancelling them. Joe Biden and the radical left are now coming for our freedom of speech and want to bully us into submission, Donald Trump, Jr., charged. Seriously? What is his father, if not the quintessential bully? And how can Republicans champion free speech, but ignore the presidents own attacks on the same?

Alas, my fellow liberals have too often demonstrated a similar inconsistency. When Trump or another Republican endangers speech, we raise up a hue and cry. But when the threat comes from our own side, we keep quiet or even cheer it along.

So after prominent University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig tweeted out critical remarks about Black Lives Matter, we called for his head. Ditto for UCLA business professor Gordon Klein, who was placed on leave after questioning students demand to change his course requirements in light of the traumas suffered by African Americans.

And when respected Intercept reporter Lee Fang posted an interview with an African American about black victims of crime, Fang was denounced as a racistreallyon social media. Never mind that Fang himself is mixed-race, or that he attended predominantly African-American public schools as a child. The Twitter mob wanted blood, and it got it.

Enough already. If you really believe in free speech, it isnt enough to complain about somebody else. You have to put your own house in order, and grant other people the same liberty that you want for yourself.We believe in freedom of thought and expression, Tiffany Trump told the GOP convention. Think what you want. Seek out the truth. Learn from those with different opinions. Then freely, make your voice heard.

If only her father would follow her advice! The biggest danger to free speech is Donald Trump, who has used his own voice to suppress different opinions at every turn. And the second biggest danger is that the rest of us are imitating Trump, all in the guise of resisting him.

See the original post:

Trumpism Is the Real Cancel Culture - Washington Monthly

Among the encroachments on Miltons three supreme liberties contained in Humza Yousafs Hate Crime Bill is a cloturing of the debate on gender identity and the law. Proposals to remove medical expertise from the gender recognition process have either stalled or been shelved, but not before their radical scope prompted a lively dispute about the ethics of gender identity, sex-based rights and the freedom to dissent. That freedom will be meaningfully reduced in Scotland if the Hate Crime Bill becomes law because it is a piece of legislation that begins from the position that all legitimate debate has already concluded.

The Bill creates an offence of stirring up hatred against a list of protected characteristics, including transgender identity. That term was defined in Scots law a decade ago in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 as referring to:

transvestism, transsexualism, intersexuality or having, by virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, changed gender, or any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity.

The explanatory notes to the Hate Crime Bill advance a new, more expansive definition that includes:

those who identify as male but were registered as female at birth, those who identify as female but were registered as male at birth, non-binary people and cross-dressing people.

Not only is this a much broader definition than that of gender reassignment in the Equality Act, the Hate Crime Bill defines its terms in opposition to those of the 2010 Act, with the accompanying notes specifying that transgender identity:

does not only refer to people with a Gender Recognition Certificate or who have undergone, are undergoing, (or propose to undergo) medical or surgical interventions.

This is a Polonian definition: to thine own pronouns be true. Identifying themselves along these lines may make life easier for transgender people, and who would object to that? But a law that adopts such arbitrary and subjective parameters - and provides for custodial punishments for offending against them - is a tripwire pulled tight around personal and expressive liberty.

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM), independent and respected analysts of Scottish public policy, warns that a failure to clarify what is meant by this term is likely to add to the already substantial risks around freedom of expression. MBM notes that, while the Bill sticks to broad themes, much more specific definitions are already in use by bodies such as Police Scotland and NHS Lanarkshire, and in both cases are:

grounded in a persons internal feelings, and specifically in a belief in the presence of a gender identity which exists innately and separately from physical sex, rather than being related to any observable behaviours or physical traits.

That is a policy analysts way of saying that everyone is making it up as they go along.

SNP justice minister Humza Yousaf is effectively adopting a Potter Stewart test for what constitutes stirring up hatred on the basis of transgender identity. The approach seems to be in essence that people (individuals? the police? prosecutors? the courts? juries?) will know it when they see it, MBM concludes. The Hate Crime Bill is legislated vagueness with a seven-year prison sentence attached.

Imprecision is not the cardinal sin of this Bill. MBM warns of a substantial chilling effect on freedom of expression and no wonder. To be prosecuted, a person will not even have to intend to stir up hatred against a group which the law itself cannot define. It will be enough that his behaviour or communications are considered threatening or abusive and that a court deems it likely that hatred will be stirred up. If this cascade of caprice becomes law some, perhaps many, holders of controversial or dissenting views will conclude that it is safer to simply shut up than risk arrest, prosecution and even imprisonment.

Ever since the Scottish Governments campaign to legislate self-identification stalled, gender-critical feminists have been on alert for attempts to introduce these changes by the back door. The Hate Crime Bill gets closer than any other measure to jimmying the lock. If it passes as drafted, the potential chilling effects on debate about gender and identity will be such that some aspects of self-identification are achieved by default. Who will dare write or say that transwomen are not women when it could bring, at the very least, a visit to your home or workplace by police? Who will insist that sex-reserved spaces be reserved on the basis of sex when there are activists out there just waiting to experience your policy as threatening or abusive? Who will object to girls who are boyish or attracted to members of the same sex being told they are trans when a fellow teacher or medic or social worker might pick up the phone and report your heresy as hate speech?

No people can consent to be governed by such an insidious and repressive law and still be counted among the freedom-valuing nations of the world. I tend to think that, rather than being motivated by conscious contempt for liberty, Humza Yousaf is so enraptured by the ascendant ideology of coercive progressivism that he cannot see what an almighty shoeing his Bill gives to the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience. Im not sure his intentions are worth a jot, though, when the consequences are so destructive. Yousaf is a Scottish nationalist but while he might believe in independence, he has no regard for freedom.

View original post here:

Scotland's Hate Crime Bill would have a chilling effect on free speech - Spectator.co.uk

Emmy Award-winning comedienne Judy Gold is now appearing at the Crown and Anchor in Provincetown. She has written a funny and compelling new book "Yes, I Can Say That" which details her musings about freedom of speech from the perspective of the comic. In the books forward, she writes, Its terrifying out there right now for stand-ups. The fear of backlash and inciting microaggression from the audience members by uttering a politically incorrect joke that offends is always present in the mind of the standup before, during and after a performance, she says.

This kind of scrutiny from the easily-offended, is not only coming from the right politically, but also those leaning left, Gold maintains. Asshe proceeds with her manifesto on a performers right to free speech, she interweaves some hilarious anecdotes and jokes that have arisen in her performing life and in the performing life of other comedians as well.

Gold talks about stereotypes, and how were all products of our history and legacy. We can laugh at them for the spark of truth they contain, and challenge them when theyve been unfairly assigned or used to denigrate," she says. "One of the best ways to challenge these long-held false beliefs is with comedy. She then gives examples of how various comedians with a host of ethnic backgrounds have handled issues centered around this kind of stereotype attribution.

But the best comedy lives on the edge of whats acceptable, Gold writes, and thats where audiences can either laugh at the joke being delivered or choose to feel offended. Sometimes feelings of offense get mixed with anger and an audience member decides to leave the show. It is simply an individuals natural impulse to protect themselves from unpleasantness that causes such action. As Gold maintains though, Jokes are nourished by tension; laughter is a release.

Golds book is also part-history, chronicling the great comics who have fought for freedom of speech, and giving homage to these comics fight against censorship. Shetackles the issue of the Cancel Culture, the phenomenon of promoting the canceling or the rejection of an individual whose actions remarks, or ideologies others consider to be offensive or problematic.

She delivers a blistering attack on Donald Trump, but the attack constitutes a valid argument. Here Gold quotes the comedian Jon Stewart, I dont understand why in this country we try to hold comedians to a higher standard we do not hold leaders to.

Gold delivers a wonderful tribute to her idol, Joan Rivers, who she says was The funniest and most fearless of women. Readers learn a great deal about Rivers career, her methods as comedienne, and her pioneering efforts to promote women in the field of comedy. Rivers jokes, interspersed throughout Golds retelling, are hilarious.

Political correctness, according to Gold, is a virus that is killing great stand-up comedy, and such a death hurts us all. Protocols defining political correctness were established to avoid insulting marginalized groups of people. Gold warns her fellow comedians that they should refrain from maliciously offending people, and be willing to laugh at themselves. A cardinal rule should be, always endeavor to gain the trust of the audience.

To us the audience, Gold challenges us to stop taking ourselves so seriously. The most important thing of all? Laugh! Let go and laugh!

Read more here:

BOOK REVIEW: Yes, I Can Say That is Judy Golds take on freedom of speech - Wicked Local Provincetown

Americans Are Waking Up To The Destruction Of First Amendment Rights

Many Americans realize that the radical political mandates to wear face masks and practice social distancing areegregious violations of the First Amendment. A large chunk of Americans simply cannot wear face masks because of pre-existing health conditions. Others believe that face masks pose a serious risk to their health, and do not believe the government has any authority to force such harm upon them.

More importantly, face masks and social distancing grossly impede our right to Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly.

Now is the time to draw the line in the sand and say NO MORE!

The Department of Justice recently issued a Statement of Interest brief to support a church's lawsuit against a city for Constitution overreach. The brief stated,

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.(Download here)

Apparently, government officials missed the part about "restrain government action." (But now, that is where YOU come in...)

If you are fed up with government overreach, draconian mandates to muzzle your voice and First Amendment rights and putting your own health at risk, then please stand with us by joining below. There is no charge to join, but you can certainly support us by donating.

After you join below, you will be directed to a donate page to consider receiving a card and lanyard as pictured below. This is OPTIONAL, but if you feel strongly that you must make a statement in your community, this is the card to display around your neck!

CFFS Members have reported very good results from wearing this card. Steve from Idaho City wrote,

"Can I get another badge/lanyard that you sent to us? They are coming down on us heavy with the mandatory mask thing in our area. My wife has used the badge/lanyard you sent us multiple times, and it works to ward off the tyrannists"

Many merchants and organizations will "honor" your wishes and not require you to wear a mask. For all who would dispute your rights, the First Amendment is conveniently printed on the reverse side, giving you an opportunity to educate them on THEIR Constitutional rights as well.

Please tell a friend. Bring them here. Work with them in your local community. Don't give in and don't give up!

The first step in getting started is to put yourself on record. Not everyone volunteers, but some will. Not everyone donates, but some can. Not everyone can reach thousands, but everyone can reach someone. We need each other because only together can we do great things. There is no time to wait, so please join us today! Note: CFFS is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.

If you are already a CFFS member and you want more cards now, please click on the DONATE button in the right column!

See original here:

Citizens for Free Speech

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is being invited to invalidate the entire field of hostile environment harassment law. One cannot confidently predict that the invitation will be declined. If the plaintiff in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University prevails, teachers at public colleges will have a constitutional right to subject their students to bigoted slurs. Much of anti-discrimination law would be deemed unconstitutional.

Nicholas Meriwether teaches philosophy at Shawnee State University, a public university in Ohio. He refused to address a transgender student by the students preferred pronouns. Instead, while addressing all other students as Mr. or Ms., he referred to the student by last name only. When disciplined for discrimination, he sued the school, claiming that his free speech rights were violated.

His complaint is full of allegations about compelled speech. The nondiscrimination policies compel Dr. Meriwether to communicate messages about gender identity that he does not hold, that he does not wish to communicate, and that conflict with (and for him to violate) his religious beliefs. He is being punished for refusing to communicate a University-mandated ideological message regarding gender identity.

Meriwethers Sixth Circuit brief declares that the school gave him no way to speak without endorsing philosophies that he believes are false and violating his religious beliefs. . . . To call a man a woman, he must endorse metaphysical positions he believes are false. University officials are compelling him to communicate their ideas about sex and gender as his own.

All this is pretty silly stuff. Government employees do not get to say whatever they want. The clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles may not make political speeches to those who apply for licenses. The Supreme Courts Pickering test holds that the speech of public employees always must be balanced against the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs. The rights of public employees to speak while on the job were even further narrowed in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that free speech does not apply to speech that is part of ones official duties. So, this is an easy case. Rules against discrimination obviously promote the delivery of educational services.

Even though the school was entitled to ignore Meriwethers claim, it tried to be nice. It suggested that he could refer to all students by first or last names only, without using gendered pronouns for any of them.That would have treated all students equally, and it would not have required him to say anything he did not believe. Why would he not do that?

Its sometimes tricky, but hardly impossible, for conservative Christians and LGBT people to live together in peace and mutual respect. Often, when they come into conflict, it is possible to put together a solution that makes room for everyone. Thats what the school tried to do. But this wont work if someone is spoiling for a fight and wont take yes for an answer.

His district court complaint declares: Dr. Meriwether refers to students in this fashion to foster an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect that is befitting the college classroom. Dr. Meriwether believes that this formal manner of addressing students helps them view the academic enterprise as a serious, weighty endeavor. Of course, the seriousness and weightiness of honorifics were not available to the transgender student. Meriwether is insisting on his right to single out the transgender student and treat her worse than all other students.

Meriwether is essentially alleging that his academic freedom, or perhaps his freedom from compelled speech (he offers lots of different free speech formulations), means that he has a First Amendment right to say anything he wants in his classroom. He also offers a Free Exercise argument, that he gets to say whatever is consistent with his religious beliefs. If these claims are accepted, then teachers have an unlimited right to verbally mistreat students.

His arguments are so extravagant that they shouldnt be worthy of notice. But lately we have seen a hypertrophy of First Amendment claims. In the 2018 case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, Justice Thomas came close to saying that any action with communicative significance is protected by free speech, and Justice Gorsuch suggested that any law that penalizes religiously motivated conduct can be characterized as religious discrimination. Both that case and this one were litigated by Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom (which posts some of the cases documents here), and those justices adopted her claims. The claims themselves would make nonsense of the law.

But Waggoner is a capable lawyer who knows her court. I am confident that this extraordinarily broad understanding is not now the law, and that the Sixth Circuit thus must reject it. I cant be confident that she wont persuade the Supreme Court, if the case gets that far.

Andrew Koppelman is a professor of law at Northwestern University and author of the recently published "Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty? The Unnecessary Conflict." Follow him on Twitter@AndrewKoppelman.

More:

Free speech gone wild: The Meriwether case | TheHill - The Hill

UNITED STATES - JULY 23: Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives in the Capitol for a vote on Thursday, ... [+] July 23, 2020. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

It is a sad irony that freedom of speech is under threat on college campuses. From Galileo onward, history is replete with examples of what happens when the inquiry that leads to discovery is derailed. For 25 years, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which I serve, has advocated before legislatures and boards of trustees for the protection of campus free speech. Most recently, I was a signatory to the Philadelphia Statement on Civil Discourse. It is an ongoing battle.

Last week, Senator Tom Cotton, along with fellow Senators Mitch McConnell, Kelly Loeffler, and Kevin Cramer, introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act (CAFSRA) as a long-needed remedy. The bill addresses the failure of so many American institutions of higher learning to ensure a campus that protects rather than obstructs what Yales C. Vann Woodward Report of 1975 called the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. If passed, CAFSRA will apply the Big Stick of federal intervention to public institutions that fail to honor the First Amendment. Private schools that violate their own stated free speech policies would also be subject to severe sanctions.

The initiative is timely, and its goals are impeccably virtuous. But it is a long way from a bills introduction to the final form of its passage, and this might be a good time to consider the context, collateral effects, and contingencies of its application.

The incentive for institutions to comply with the CAFSRA is enormous. The Big Stick that the bill proposes is rendering a noncompliant institution ineligible for federal funding. For many colleges and universities, this would mean insolvency and demise.

For such high stakes, there must be bright lines to guide behavior, and therein the bill encounters some significant challenges. Some provisions, such as the withholding of federal funds from public institutions that maintain policies in violation of the First Amendment, are unquestionably overdue: The persistence of unconstitutional speech codes is a disgrace that has long corrupted campus culture. Other provisions are less clear.

Inevitably, high-spirited college students will test the boundaries of the expressive activities protected by the law in the generally accessible outdoor area on which the bill places significant focus. The provisions of the proposed legislation as written may inadvertently provide shelter and legal protection for some programs that few would deem appropriate for public spaces. It is not unreasonable to ask whether the proposed legislation would extend federal protection, for example, to an outdoor drama or performance art utilizing sex toys, as expressive activity. Anyone who has worked on a college campus will know that this scenario is not at all beyond likelihood. Given that an adverse finding would jeopardize its access to federal funding, would the college administration dare to demand that such events not take place in a generally accessible outdoor area that members of the public with young children might frequent? Would this bill make such matters an occasion for litigation, rather than simply finding reasonable accommodations for the avant-garde that are not in the faces of the general public?

The proposed legislation states that the Secretary of Education will enforce the new law, and that, of course, means possibly promulgating negotiated rules to define further the reach of the legislation. There will soon be a presidential election, and it may be that the new Secretary of Education might determine, for example, that there is a compelling government interest in discouraging speech deemed hostile to protected minorities. In other words, the new legislation could be heavy on penalties but less effective than hoped in protecting viewpoint diversity. While it is purely logical that the federal government exercise its interest in ensuring that the colleges and universities that accept public money abide by the First Amendment (or, in the case of private institutions, their own stated policies on free speech), doing that fairly and effectively is no small challenge.

Ultimately, top down efforts at cultural change are likely to be infeasible and, even at their best, cannot be fully effective. What is crucial for the college students who will join the workforce is that they internalize the values of debate, discussion, and respectful disagreement. Seventy-four colleges and universities to date have adopted the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression, the gold standard for an institutional commitment to academic freedom, or a similar pledge to the free exchange of ideas. It is a disgrace that so few institutions have stepped forward. Every faculty assembly and every board of trustees at every one of Americas degree-granting colleges and universities, all 4,360+ of them, should by now have done so. It ranks up there with clean air and water on campus. Arguably, some kind of legislative kick is appropriate to get American higher education seriously to foster and protect free speech. The challenge is how to aim it.

South Dakotas lightly prescriptive intellectual diversity bill, H.B. 1087, is a model worth considering. (Disclosure, my employer, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, gave testimony supporting this bill.) Passed in 2019, the bill requires all of the states public universities to make intellectual diversity an institutional priority and to report on their progress, whether it be in the form of hiring faculty with varying viewpoints or bringing unconventional speakers to campus. The magic of the bill is that it respects institutional autonomy in educational decisions. So far, it has met with a remarkably high level of acceptance from the state Board of Regents.

In its austere majesty, the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution does not welcome Congress into such matters, and when congressional intervention is necessary, it must happen with an abundance of circumspection and caution.

Bravo to Senator Cotton and his cosponsors for taking on the challenge. There is significant work ahead to find just the right formula for success. What might be most fruitful is legislation that provides surgically targeted disincentives for institutions to discourage free speech and financial incentives for positive programming to create a culture in which the free exchange of ideas flourishes and becomes a lifelong habit for young American citizens.

Follow this link:

Can The Feds Protect Campus Free Speech? - Forbes

Australian comedian Hannah Gadsby became a global star with her Netflix special Nanette. Its a remarkable piece of work, and it does what great art is supposed to do: give you a sense, however fleeting, of what it is like to live inside another humans experience. Gadsbys new special, Douglas, takes that a step further: It explores her autism diagnosis and gives you a sense of what it is like to experience the world through another persons mind.

The first half of my episode with Gadsby is about her experience moving through the world as a neurodiverse person. Gadsby didnt receive her autism diagnosis until she was almost 40 years old, after decades of struggling to navigate systems, institutions, and norms that werent built for people like her. Her story of how she got to comedy and how close she was to simply falling off the map is searing, and it helped me see some of the capabilities and social conventions I take for granted in a new light. As in her shows, Gadsby, here, renders an experience few of us have had emotionally legible. Its a powerful conversation.

Then we turn to the topics of free speech, safety, and cancel culture. For years, comedy has been undergoing many of the very same debates that have recently become front and center in the journalism world, and Gadsby has done some of the most powerful thinking Ive heard on these issues. We discuss what it means for people in power to take responsibility for their speech, how to navigate the complex relationship between creator and audience members, why Twitter is a bullying pulpit, the role of recording technology, and the new skills those of us privileged with a platform are going to need to develop.

This is one of those conversations Ive been thinking about since I had it. Dont miss it.

You can listen to our discussion by streaming it here, or by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you get your podcasts.

Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we werent sure how it would go. Today, were humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. Thats never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone wont let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.

More here:

Hannah Gadsby on comedy, free speech, and living with autism - Vox.com

Some folks who have butted heads with social-media giants like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube over politically incorrect things they have said or written, and who have battled college administrators for their right to say uncomfortable things on a college campus, are banding together for something dubbed CancelCon.

Organizers are billing their digital convention as "The biggest free speech event of the year." Speakers include Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla, all of whom appear in a movie about the so-called "cancel culture" at universities called No Safe Spaces, a co-sponsor of the event.

Many of the participants have been outspoken on the topic of free speech, including some who have testified at congressional hearings.

"I speak on dozens of college campuses every year, so I have some first-hand experience with the anti-First Amendment activities. I've encountered anti-free speech measures, administrative cowardice, even physical violence," Shapiro told members of Congress in 2017.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

At that same hearing three years ago, Carolla spoke sarcastically about "white privilege" and college kids who "grew up dipped in Purell," making a couple of prescient jokes considering the Black Lives Matter protesting and constant hand-washing amid the coronavirus pandemic that have marked 2020.

Now, they are taking their acts to CancelCon, to be streamed online September 17 and co-sponsored by Young America's Foundation, one of the nation's largest organizations for conservative youth.

Organizers say it is the first in what they hope will be an annual event "for as long as the cancel culture exists," as one insider put it. The hope is that in the post-pandemic future it would be a physical convention, much like PolitiCon, which was last held in October in Nashville, Tennessee, and included appearances by former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazille, former FBI Director James Comey and conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Tomi Lahren.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

"People are being shut down or 'canceled' at an increasingly alarming rate for simply wanting to speak their mind," Prager told Newsweek. "We are living through the greatest threat to free speech in American history. Free Speech was the one thing virtually every American agreed on. That this is changing is a far greater threat to America's future than any foreign enemy."

The talk-show host's PragerU, consisting of dozens of five-minute educational videos, has been at war for years with YouTube, which deems some of the content harmful to children and therefore restricts much of it in the same way it does pornography.

One of PragerU's videos consists of Prager testifying to lawmakers last year when he told Sen. Ted Cruz that YouTube restricted a video about the Ten Commandments because it speaks of murder. "I will appeal to Google by re-releasing it as the Nine Commandments," Prager quipped at the hearing.

While Prager and Shapiro are conservative and Carolla is libertarian, Rubin, who was once part of the left-leaning Young Turks Network, describes himself as a "classical liberal," though his detractors allegedly seeking to "cancel" him label him far right and accuse him of hobnobbing with alleged white nationalists.

Ironically, the event will be featured on some of the platforms the four have battled with, including Facebook and YouTube, and it will include clips of No Safe Spaces, which was the top political documentary at the box office in 2019 and in March became the first film to be digitally distributed by Salem Media Group, the leader in conservative talk radio. Mill Street Entertainment releases the film on DVD and various streaming services on Sept. 15.

"The very thesis of No Safe Spaces 'what happens on campus will not stay on campus' is playing out in front of our very eyes," Carolla told Newsweek. "It's time to flex the muscle of resistance and refuse to be bullied."

Continue reading here:

CancelCon Takes on 'Greatest Threat to Free Speech in American History' - Newsweek

Written by Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore | Updated: August 17, 2020 9:14:55 amIt is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. (Reuters)

In George Orwells 1984, it was a thoughtcrime to actually disagree with the viewpoints established by Big Brother. The latest manifestation of this Orwellian concept is the Left-Congress cabals outrage over a Western media houses hit-job on Facebook, an already Left-Congress-leaning platform. Truth, as in the case of 1984, is a casualty. Merely scratching the surface reveals how this storm in a teacup is merely an exercise to browbeat Facebook for allowing certain opinions to even exist.

It is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. The Singapore Parliamentary hearings in this context have become rather famous representatives of Facebook were pulled up for their smug attitude. In its parent country, the United States, a Senate hearing had laid bare the hoax of neutrality by cornering Facebook on using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, particularly conservative viewpoints. In India, too, we have seen examples of Facebook actually filtering out non-Left and non-Congress viewpoints through manufactured labels of fake news. They are even accused of using shadow banning algorithms.

What the Left wants is not control over hate speech but unfettered freedom of hate speech to its ideologically-aligned members. That is why you would hear Mark Zuckerberg quote Kapil Mishra but say nothing on Sonia Gandhi who exhorted people in Delhi to do aar paar ki ladai (prepare for the final battle). There are millions of posts mocking Hindu gods and abusing right-of-centre leaders. But Facebooks advanced algorithms and community standards fail to catch them. However, unsuspecting common people running pro-right-of-centre pages are suspended with no right to appeal.

What the Left wants is not diversity in organisational culture. It wants full compliance. Hence, it does not suffice for them if most hirings in Facebook India come from Left-Congress background. There are examples of current and former Facebook executives with links to the former government and opposition parties, and some of them have been openly critical of the prime minister as well. To accuse them of being pro-BJP is laughable.

Nor does it bother the gatekeepers that the Congress party was caught hand-in-glove with Cambridge Analytica, an infamous big-data-enabled democracy manipulator that has interfered in several countries electoral processes and has used Facebook as its weapon. They actually had the Congress hand symbol in their office but this controversy was silently buried. Imagine the uproar if the same linkage had been found with a BJP members son-in-laws fathers nephews brothers son.

The problem, however, is much larger, and intellectually rooted in the fake post-truth world phenomenon bandied about by a bunch of elitists afraid to lose their power of labelling views as thoughtcrimes. Scared of being shown the mirror of reality, an entire cabal has decided to rally their comrades and undertake hit jobs on those who do not fully comply with their dictums.

Sadly, the real story has been missed in the entire discussion the actual scam by Facebook that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. Funding and validating eminent journalists belonging to the pro-Left cabal and empowering them to become the arbiters of truth on Facebook is the game, whereas anything that goes against their views and opinions is deemed fake. Out-of-job Left-leaning journalists and their views count as gospel truth to the gatekeepers, but the Prime Ministers speech on Independence Day got labelled as fake news. Is it just a coincidence that the battery of Facebook certified eminent fact-checkers havent yet been able to fact-check any of Rahul Gandhis claims?

It is surprising but not shocking to note that Facebook even allowed paid promotion of posts using morphed pictures of PM Modi with a Pakistan flag, whereas pages that allow opposing viewpoints often lose their monetisation for merely stating facts.

After the decline of the grip of mainstream media as the sole arbiter of truth, the battle for narratives has moved to social media. Originally, these were not platforms that the Left-Congress controlled, because there were no gates or gatekeepers. However, since then, a planned campaign has taken over these platforms too.

This latest round of manufactured outrage should be seen as the Lefts internecine warfare to control an already-Congress and Left-leaning platform and punish them for even the most minor of thoughtcrimes allowing alternative viewpoints. This is yet another attempt to regain a monopoly over narratives and disenfranchising alternate versions. Armed with the power of an organised cabal, the gatekeepers believe that they can continue to perpetuate the same one-sided monopoly.

The more social media platforms fall to tendentious voices from the Left and become echo chambers, the more they will lose their credibility. We should all stand up and resist this organised assault by the Left-Congress ecosystem on our fundamental right to exercise our free speech within the boundaries set by Indian law.

The writer is a former Minister of State of Information and Broadcasting (2018-19) and a BJP MP

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

More here:

Facebook is in the dock; we need to resist Left-Congress assault on free speech - The Indian Express

Forty-five words.

Throughout our history, United States citizens have debated 45 words that have become the bedrock on which our culture stands: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the death of George Floyd, I have spent an enormous amount of time reflecting on what has occurred and continues to occur in our country. What originated in Minneapolis has brought forth a level of dialogue around not only racism, but also our First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

I did what any lifelong learner would do I researched it and refreshed my knowledge on those 45 words that are imprinted on Americans.

Did you know that the First Amendment was actually supposed to be the Third Amendment? The original first and second amendments were defeated at the time. The original first amendment dealt with how members of the House of Representatives would be assigned to the states a measure that would have resulted in more than 6,000 members of the House of Representatives. The original second amendment? It addressed Congressional pay (it was later approved as the 27th Amendment 203 years later).

And then the third became the first. How fortuitous it was to have the first two amendments fail so that the third would become the first. The amendment for which the United States is known around the world and arguably has influenced other nations became first through fate.

While our courts have decided that some speech is protected and some not (fighting words, child pornography, true threats, etc.), it is important to remember that we should not necessarily differentiate who is entitled to free speech and assembly and who is not.

The 45 words of the First Amendment encapsulate the liberty we cherish. You cannot be supporters of freedom of speech and assembly of only ideas with which you agree and only people with whom you agree.

The bottom line is this: Our First Amendment rights are fundamental to the fabric of our nation. Whether or not we agree with the speech or demonstration, we have been afforded this right by our founding fathers.

Our ability to contribute to the marketplace of ideas whether or not we like or agree with those ideas and those who share them is what makes our country an incomparable place to live, work and play.

Randy Boyd is the president of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

Follow this link:

Our First Amendment shows world meaning of free speech - The Connection

As 2019s biggest political documentary at the box office, No Safe Spaces, releases to digital platforms and DVD, the films co-stars have announced a historic online free speech event, #CancelCon, which will address todays increasingly hostile environment where cancel culture and the U.S. Constitution clash.

People are being shut down or canceled at an increasingly alarming rate for simply wanting to speak their mind, said Dennis Prager. The Constitution is in jeopardy and our nation stands on the brink.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report will be hosting the event and will be joined by No Safe Spaces co-stars Dennis Prager, Adam Carolla, the Daily Wires Ben Shapiro, and others who will share an in-depth analysis of the current anti-free speech cancel culture phenomenon. Cancel culture has made America uglier and less interesting. Its time to cancel it, adds Ben Shapiro.

Young Americas Foundation (YAF) is co-sponsoring this free event, simulcasting live on YouTube, Facebook, and http://www.NoSafeSpaces.com at 8:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, September 17Constitution Day. YAFs extensive nationwide network of student groups and campus activists will participate in the online program throughout the evening.

The very thesis of No Safe Spaceswhat happens on campus will not stay on campusis playing out in front of our eyes, noted Carolla. Its time to flex the muscle of resistance and refuse to be bullied.

If we lose the right to free speech, we lose everything, noted Young Americas Foundation President Ron Robinson. YAF has stood up for and defended the First Amendment on and off campus throughout our 60-year history. We are thrilled to partner with No Safe Spaces to shed more light on this important issue.

No Safe Spaces earned $1.3m at the box office and was the highest-rated film of 2019 as ranked by the Rotten Tomatoes audience score.

Related Link

CancelCon Takes on Greatest Threat to Free Speech in American History, Newsweek, August 17, 2020.

No Safe Spaces was partially funded by CRCs Dangerous Documentaries.

Go here to see the original:

#CancelCon to Explore Cancel Culture and the Threats to Free Speech - Capital Research Center

In this clip from #TheRandiRhodesShow, Randi discusses the latest anti-Trump ad from #thelincolnproject, the new birtherism, Trump lies, and more!

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplifies free speech.

Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FST

Birther Movement Donald Trump Lincoln Project Randi Rhodes The Randi Rhodes Show

Read more:

The Reviews Are In... - Free Speech TV