Can the US restore manufacturing jobs before Trump breaks off all sensible business and imports from China? Why has our manufacturing all gone offshore? It is all about subsidies and tariffs.

Rob E. Scott joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the possibilities of reversing the decline in manufacturing.

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

China Donald Trump Economy Manufacturing Rob E. Scott The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Trade United States

See the original post here:

Is This Our Last Chance To Return Manufacturing Jobs To The US? - Free Speech TV

Americans are coming together August 17-20. Be a part of it. Tune in to the 2020 Democratic National Convention from 9-11pm ET each night.

Watch Live at freespeech.org/watch-live

The theme of Monday's program isWe the People.America is facing a series of monumental challengesas the COVID-19 pandemic continues its rampage, tens of millions of people are out of work, and our nation confronts a legacy of racial injustice that has marginalized too many. But as we have learned throughout our history, when we stand united, we can overcome anything.

Tonight the nation will hear from the many Americans who are rising up to take on these three crises, and who will join Joe Biden in building back better and moving this country forward. With Joe Biden as president, we the people will mean all the people.

Highlights from tonights program are listed below, with additional special guests slated to join throughout the evening:

WE THE PEOPLE

IntroductionEva LongoriaAmerican actress

We the People Gavel In

Everyday Americans will read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, beforeConvention Chair and The Honorable Bennie Thompsonofficially gavels in the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Call to OrderThe Honorable Bennie ThompsonPermanent Chair of the 2020 Democratic National ConventionMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi

Pledge of Allegiance

National AnthemA multicultural choir performing virtually with singers representing all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Cheyenne Nation and five territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.

InvocationReverend Gabriel SalgueroPresident of the National Latino Evangelical CoalitionCo-lead pastor of The Lambs Church in New York, New York

RemarksThe Honorable Gwen MooreSergeant-at-Arms of the 2020 Democratic National ConventionMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Wisconsin

WE THE PEOPLE DEMANDING RACIAL JUSTICE

RemarksThe Honorable Muriel BowserMayor of Washington, D.C.

PerformanceLeon BridgesAmerican singer

The Path Forward: A Conversation with Vice President Biden on Racial JusticeVice President Biden engages with, and listens to,social justice activist Jamira Burley, Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, NAACP President Derrick Johnson, andauthor Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner,about how America can move forward towards equality, fairness, and justice for all.

RemarksThe Honorable James ClyburnHouse Democratic WhipMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina

WE THE PEOPLE HELPING EACH OTHER THROUGH COVID-19

RemarksThe Honorable Andrew CuomoGovernor of the State of New York

RemarksKristin UrquizaA woman whose father lost his life to COVID-19.

A Conversation with Healthcare Workers on the Front LinesA conversation with a doctor, paramedic, and two nurses on the front lines of this pandemic about what theyve endured, and whats at stake in this election for Americas essential medical workers.

Introduction of PerformerThe Honorable Sara GideonSpeaker of the Maine House of Representatives

PerformanceMaggie RogersAmerican singer-songwriter

RemarksThe Honorable Gretchen WhitmerGovernor of the State of Michigan

WE THE PEOPLE PUTTING COUNTRY OVER PARTY

RemarksThe Honorable Christine WhitmanFormer Governor of New Jersey

Meg WhitmanFormer CEO of Hewlett Packard

The Honorable Susan MolinariFormer Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York

RemarksThe Honorable John KasichFormer Governor of the State of Ohio

RemarksThe Honorable Doug JonesUnited States Senator, Alabama

RemarksThe Honorable Catherine Cortez MastoUnited States Senator, Nevada

RemarksThe Honorable Amy KlobucharUnited States Senator, Minnesota

United We StandFormer 2020 Democratic candidates for president of the United States will come together once again to talk about why they ran, what theyre fighting for, and why they believe Joe Biden will bring the nation together, move the nation out of crisis and chaos, and move us forward featuringVice Presidential Nominee and Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Cory Booker, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Governor Jay Inslee, Senator Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Representative Seth Moulton, Former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke, Tom Steyer,andAndrew Yang.

WE THE PEOPLE RECOVERING

RemarksThe Honorable Cedric RichmondMember of the U.S. House of Representatives, Louisiana

RemarksThe Honorable Bernie SandersUnited States Senator, Vermont

WE THE PEOPLE RISE

Keynote RemarksMichelle ObamaFormer First Lady of the United States

PerformanceBilly Porter and Steven StillsAmerican singer-songwriters

BenedictionReverend Dr. Jerry Young18th President of the National Baptist Convention, USA

Democratic Democratic National Convention DNC Free Speech TV

See more here:

The Tune Into Right Here To Watch Night 1 Of The Democratic National Convention - Free Speech TV

If you read the coverage online or watch the cable networks, the extremist movement known as antifa is either the new Al Qaeda or the new Big Foot. President Trump wants to have antifa classified as a terrorist organization, while various Democrats insist it is simply a conservative phantom. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler even insisted that violence by antifa is a myth and called the accounts imaginary.

While I oppose designating antifa as a terrorist organization, its existence is certainly not a myth. Indeed, it may be the most successful movement against free speech in modern history. However, its structure and tactics avoid easy detection, which is why so many people claim the group is an apparition. It is true that whenever such spontaneous and concentrated violence erupts, many people tend to believe it is antifa.

Antifa is often the culprit on university campuses. In the film The Usual Suspects, the character Virgil described the invisible villain Keyser Soze. He is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. Antifa does exist and the last few weeks demonstrate how skilled it is as the Keyser Soze of social unrest in America.

Antifa was founded on a rejection of formal structures and leaders. Many associated groups are part of Anti-Racist Action and a loose coordinating organization known as the Torch Network. This lack of structure not only appeals to the anarchist elements for the movement but serves to evade both law enforcement and legal challenges. The threat of antifa is not its role in civil unrest but its activities attacking free speech.

Both far left and far right groups have been identified in riots in various cities. These extremist groups use social media and the internet to sow disorder, hide their identities, and frame other groups for their activities. Notably in the last week, Richmond police identified both antifa and the Boogaloo Boys in violent protests in that city. It is part of what Attorney General William Barr refers to as the witches brew of violent groups on both sides such as antifa and some other similar groups.

Antifa members have been arrested and involved in violence in the cities. The president of the Portland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wrote in the Washington Post to denounce the white spectacle of the recent violence. He asked, What are antifa and other leftist agitators achieving for the cause of black equality?

The answer is that antifa is not an ally to Black Lives Matter. It is all about revolutionary change and using demonstrations to trigger greater social unrest. It follows the same purpose mistakenly spoken by former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley following those riots during the Democratic National Convention in 1968, The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder. Antifa causes such violence.

Antifa has found allies while the movement has grown. It primarily targets conservatives and the free speech community, so it has not been a major concern of liberals. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said antifa would strike fear in the heart of Trump. This was after antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.

That fact is that antifa works to strike fear not in the heart of Trump but in the heart of anyone who will oppose the movement. The antifa handbook states how the group has rejected the idea of free speech and has spent years organizing protests to prevent opposing views from getting heard. That practice has been adopted by other groups as well. Antifa violence can give colleges or politicians cover for barring conservative speakers. Nancy Pelosi has called for the revocation of a permit for a conservative prayer group viewed as a security matter in San Francisco.

George Washington University student Jason Charter has been charged as the alleged ringleader of efforts to take down statues across the capital. Charter has been an active antifa member on campus for years. Following his arrest, he claimed the movement is winning. It is winning partly since local officials order police to stand down or drop criminal charges to avoid conflict. But it is winning mostly since people remain silent.

Silence hurts free speech. Antifa knows that. It is the silence of professors who watch as their colleagues are harassed, investigated, or threatened. It is the silence of students who watch as others are attacked for dissenting ideas. It is the silence of reporters who watch as other journalists are fired or forcibly retired for challenging orthodox views. Finally, it is the silence of those politicians who dismiss the destruction of property as a case, in the words of Pelosi, that people will do what people will do.

Antifa will do a great deal of damage if allowed. It is why, for academics and writers, its existence is frightening. As Virgil explained, Keyser Soze became the spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. Antifa has achieved the agenda against free speech to a degree that even critics like me never imagined possible. It simply took inaction from our government and silence from our citizens. Threats against free speech are reaching a critical mass in our schools and on our streets. We can either take action or remain passive bystanders to what inevitably comes next.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University who will testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee on antifa and the movement against free speech in America.

The rest is here:

Is antifa the greatest movement against free speech in America? | TheHill - The Hill

About 18 months ago, I attended a debate at Policy Exchange, the think tank founded by Nick Boles, Francis Maude and Archie Norman, on whether there was a free speech crisis at British universities. One panellist, Professor Jon Wilson of Kings College London, vigorously denied that any such problem existed. Various people pointed to examples of right-of-centre academics being no-platformed Charles Murray, Amy Wax, Linda Gottfredson but that was scarcely conclusive. It was anecdotal evidence, not hard data.

The same cannot be said any more. This week, Policy Exchange published a paper by three academics Remi Adekoya, Eric Kaufmann and Tom Simpson which proves beyond reasonable doubt that free speech is in trouble in the higher-education sector. They commissioned a YouGov survey involving a randomly-collected sample of more than 800 professors and lecturers, some working, some retired, who represented the 217,000 academic staff in British universities in 2018-9. Surveys of academics have been done before, some involving larger sample sizes, but none as rigorous as this.

Their findings wont surprise anyone familiar with the sector. For instance, 75 per cent of UK academics voted for left-of-centre parties in the 2017 and 2019 elections, compared with less than 20 per cent who voted right-of-centre. Just over half said they would feel comfortable sitting next to a Leave supporter at lunch, while only 37 per cent said they would risk sharing a table with a dissenter from trans orthodoxy. Among the small minority of academics who identify as right or fairly right, 32 per cent have refrained from airing their views in front of colleagues.

The authors are careful not to accuse left-wing academics of being more intolerant than right-wing ones and, indeed, those who identified as right-of-centre were, for the most part, just as hostile towards their ideological opponents. Fifty per cent of those on the right said they would discriminate in favour of a Leave voter over a Jeremy Corbyn supporter in a job interview. But because academics on the left outnumber those on the right by almost four to one, right-of-centre lecturers and professors inevitably face far more discrimination. This has a chilling effect on free speech because conservative academics have to conceal their views and avoid challenging progressive norms if they want successful careers.

Having identified the problem, the authors propose a solution: an Academic Freedom Bill. This would create a Director for Academic Freedom as a member of the senior team at the Office for Students, the English universities regulator, who would report directly to the board and be appointed by the Education Secretary. His or her role would be to ensure higher-education providers honour their professed commitment to free speech. The Bill would also include measures to strengthen this commitment, by stipulating that universities have a direct duty to protect academic freedom and that if they breach it they would be liable for damages. In addition, the Bill would make it explicit in law that higher-education providers cant invoke their public sector equality duty or the harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to disregard their obligation to uphold free speech.

That last point is important since the Equality Act is often cited by administrators as something that has to be balanced against academic freedom. For example, Stephen Toope, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, referred to the need to ensure Muslim students didnt feel personally attacked when defending the divinity facultys decision to rescind its offer of a visiting fellowship to Jordan Peterson after a photograph emerged of him standing next to a fan wearing a Im a proud Islamophobe T-shirt.

As the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, Im at the forefront of trying to defend academic freedom and if this Bill became law it would undoubtedly make my job easier. But will the government take any notice? For once, Im reasonably optimistic. Not only was there a line in the Conservative manifesto about doing more to protect free speech in universities, but the Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, recently said that higher-education providers would have to demonstrate that theyre upholding academic freedom as a condition of receiving bailout money. This could be one of those rare instances in which a policy proposal by a think tank quickly finds its way on to the statute books.

Excerpt from:

The proof that free speech in universities is in peril - Spectator.co.uk

Auburn University is choosing to align with conservative values over their usual rigid defense of freedom of speech. On Wednesday, July 23, Dr. Jesse Goldberg, a new lecturer at Auburn University tweeted some choice words about police brutality:

"F*ck every single cop, he wrote. Every single one. The only ethical choice for any cop to make at this point is to refuse to do their job and quit. The police do not protect people. They protect capital. They are instruments of violence on behalf of capital."

To which Auburn University official Brian Keeter responded,

"We find Mr. Goldbergs comments inexcusable and completely counter to Auburn values. Hate speech of any kind is simply wrong, adding, Auburn is fully committed to the fundamental right of free speech, but we do not support hateful words or actions that degrade, disrespect or exclude. Concluding, Auburn officials are considering options available to the university."

As an aside, hate speech is not just any expression of contempt. It is specifically defined as aggressive speech against people of a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation. One is not born a cop; it is a choice. Therefore, condemnation of those who choose to participate in this oppressive system cannot be considered hate speech. Regardless, I find this hard and fast response to what Keeter is calling "hate speech" out of character considering the context of Auburn's response to actual hate speech in the past.

Not even a year ago, the University refused to act on hate speech against the LGBTQ community when homophobic College of Education professor Bruce Murray made several posts to social media that denied the existence of transgender people, including a meme of a trans woman with the caption, Todays liberals are so dumb they think men can change into women. And so evil they will punish you for telling the truth.

I think it is important to note that hate speech like this fuels hate crimes against trans women, and in Alabama there are currently no protections against hate crimes for people of the LGBTQ community.

Get The Plainsman straight to your inbox.

In light of this incident, the University's response was markedly different. Auburn University issued an official statement citing freedom of speech, and the College of Education Associate Dean stated, His personal beliefs are really no concern of mine, as they are any other faculty member.

So, I want to know. Where does Auburn University draw the line on freedom of speech? The line is certainly not in a place concerned with protecting human lives. As of now, it appears to be the same line distinguishing liberal and conservative values.

Kayleigh Chalkowski is a Ph.D. student in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University.

Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.

Kayleigh Chalkowski | Student

Read more from the original source:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Auburn forgoes freedom of speech for conservative values - The Auburn Plainsman

For years, there have been whispers about Big Techs tendency to muffle those who dare to challenge mainstream liberal orthodoxy. In 2018, thePew Research Centerfound, 72% of the public thinks it likely that social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable. By a four-to-one margin, respondents were more likely to say Big Tech supports the views of liberals over conservatives than vice versa.

As the 2020 elections approach, Big Tech has upped the ante in its limiting of free speech. This is a dangerous development that undermines the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. If left unchecked, it could lead to an Orwellian nightmare and, ultimately, to the end of the republic as we know it.

In the past few years, there have been countless cases of social media giants Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube muzzling conservatives and libertarians, for apparent political motives. For example, it is well documented thatTwitter uses shadow bansto prevent users from sharing their posts to the hundreds of millions of Twitter users.

Somehow,shadow bans overwhelmingly have been applied to those on the rightend of the political spectrum. Coincidence? I think not.

Although those on the left claim this is exaggerated, it happens all the time. And it seems that Twitter and others are clamping down more and more on prominent users who have the audacity to question the so-called consensus on a variety of issues.

Recently, Twitter has come under increased scrutiny because it has targeted conservatives such asDonald Trump Jr.who have posted material that question mainstream narrative about protests, coronavirus treatments, the wisdom of lockdowns and several other pressing issues.

The Trump Jr. case is particularly spine-chilling because all the presidents son did was post a video from a group of doctors who presented a case for using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. According to Twitter, Tweets with the video are in violation of our Covid-19 misinformation policy. We are taking action in line with our policy here.

Shortly after, Facebook and YouTube also scrubbed the video. Although this may seem like no big deal, it certainly is.

In 2020,most Americans receive their news via social media. The sheer power held by these companies concerning the flow of information is mind-boggling. And they can use their power to shift public opinion, as demonstrated in the 2010 election whenFacebook launched a get-out-the-vote campaignthat it claims resulted in 343,000 more voters going to the polls.

If Facebook and other social media giants can nudge Americans to vote, how long before they also shift public opinion in the direction they desire? It seems as if this Rubicon may have already been crossed.

In some ways, Google has more power over information than the social media companies because Google completely dominates internet searches. Over the past year,Googles market share of worldwide internet searches has hovered around 92 percent.

According to a recentstudytitled An analysis of political bias in search engine results, Googles top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a Left or Far Left slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results.

In other words, according to that study, Googles algorithm is politically biased to favor the left over the right. Maybe that explains why Google and other Big Tech companies contribute so much money to the Democratic Party compared to the Republican Party.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics,70 percentof donations by Facebook and its employees in the 2020 campaign cycle have gone to Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Googles political contributions have gone to Democrats. The same trend applies to Amazon (74 percent) and Apple (91 percent).

Fortunately, Big Techs bias is becoming more and more apparent. Most Americans are well aware that in general, Big Tech favors leftwing causes, politicians and opinions.

Since it seems that Congress is unwilling to do anything about this in the near future, the question is, what can and should we the people do about it?

Chris Talgo(ctalgo@heartland.org)is an editor at The Heartland Institute.

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech's assault on free speech | TheHill - The Hill

The Government must legislate to ensure freedom of speech is protected in university students unions, a leading think tank has said.

A report by the influential Policy Exchange said Parliament needed to make current legislation clearer and more robust, and impress upon universities and colleges their duty to ensure academic freedom and freedom of speech.

In recent years, students unions in England have denied pro-life and Christian student groups access to funding, and facilities such as stalls at freshers fairs.

The report called for a new Director for Academic Freedom at the Office for Students to promote tolerance for viewpoint diversity in universities and students unions.

The role would encourage compliance and investigate possible breaches.

It added that guidance should be updated to ensure students unions fulfil their freedom of speech duties and universities and colleges had to be being willing to support events in the face of intimidation and threats.

Policy Exchange has called for the Government to provide examples of sanctions that universities and colleges can apply to non-complying students unions.

It stated that universities and colleges would be expected to impose such fines against individual members of the University and those groups that fail to uphold freedom of speech, including fines for Student Unions who discriminate on grounds of viewpoint.

Where a Student Union denies a student group access to services, the report says there should be a process to appeal.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson indicated in February that the Government is ready to defend students rights to freedom of speech.

Writing in The Times, he said: If universities dont take action, the government will. If necessary, Ill look at changing the underpinning legal framework, perhaps to clarify the duties of students unions or strengthen free speech rights.

I dont take such changes lightly, but I believe we have a responsibility to do whatever necessary to defend this right.

In 2017, Balliol College of Oxford University banned the Christian Union from its Freshers Fair, because Christianity was labelled as an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism.

Organiser Freddy Potts claimed that the presence of CU members would be alienating for students and constituted a microaggression, but a backlash from Balliol students forced the organising committee to back down.

Office for Students defends free speech in no-platforming row

Security guards for Oxford prof after trans activists threats

Universities launch free speech societies

Read more here:

Influential think tank urges Govt to protect free speech in universities - The Christian Institute

Students still have (some) First Amendment rights.Lisa McIntyre/Unsplash This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

Images of maskless students packing the hallways between classes at North Paulding High Schoolin Georgia became the viral symbols this week of a nationwide battle over whether and how to reopen schools in the midst of a pandemic that is still really not under control. It was widely reported on Monday and Tuesday that the schoollocated about an hour outside of Atlantahad reopened with a masks-optional policy, despite an outbreak among football players who had worked out in a crowded indoor gym, and despite multiple positive tests among players and school staff. The district has taken the position, despite recommendations fromCenters for Disease Control and Prevention health officials, that mask-wearing was a personal choice and that social distancing will not be possible to enforce in most cases. Virtual enrollment for the school had filled up rapidly, so most students had no other choice but to attend class in person or risk suspension.

The public health story was itself soon eclipsed by Thursdays news that two North Paulding students had been suspended for taking and posting other photos and a video. One of the teens, 15-year-old Hannah Watters, told BuzzFeed News she had received a five-day, out-of-school suspension for posting a photo and a video on Twitter. Watters announced Friday that her suspension had been rescinded. Meanwhile, the school went to remote learning on Thursday and Friday in order to assess and refine its health policies.

While the matter of Watters suspension seems to have been resolved, the larger question of student speech rights, especially on social media, and especially during a public health disaster, is far from settled. What Watters was doing was journalism. In addition to her viral photos, she had also been posting tallies of the proportions of students wearing masks in her classes. The viral photo she posted was captioned, Day two at North Paulding High School. It is just as bad. We were stopped because it was jammed. We are close enough to the point where I got pushed multiple go to second block. This is not ok. Not to mention the 10% mask rate.

School superintendent Brian Otott, who confirmed the North Paulding student suspension in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, initially would not say whether the discipline was connected with the photos. (He would not comment, he said, out of regard for the students privacy.)Otott told the media that the photo was taken out of context. But he also told parents and guardiansin a letterthat there is no question that the photo does not look good. Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them. BuzzFeed further reported that on Wednesday, school principal Gabe Carmona threatened any student found criticizing the school on social media. Anything thats going on social media thats negative or alike without permission, photography, thats video or anything, there will be consequences, Carmona told students over the intercom.

Put to one side that I have heard this week from numerous parents in Georgia about daughters who have been sent home from school for wearing spaghetti straps, miniskirts, or shorts deemed too short for public viewing. (How is science-based public health a matter of personal choice whereas girls dressing demurely is an enforceable mandate?) Lets focus instead on why a school district thought it could suspend a student for posting newsworthy images.

Watters said she was called into the schools office Wednesday and told she had violated three policies from the school districts student code of conduct: She had used her phone during class time; she had used her phone during school hours for social media; and she had posted photos of minors without consent on a social media platform. But as Watters told CNN, high school students are exempt from the district policy on phones (its targeted toward younger students), and she didnt post the photo until after school was over. She admitted to violating the policy on posting images of students to social media, but, of course, students violate that rule every day.

Everyone loves to mouth the platitude that students dont shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, as set forth in the landmark 1969 Tinker case, when the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student had the right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. But Tinkers holding has been eroded over the decades since, such that student speech can be regulated in schools to ensure that substantial disruptions do not occur on school grounds. Anxiety over new media, bullying, sexting, and porn have only added to the tensions felt by school administrators who try to regulate online conduct by putting blanket policies in place.

At least in theory, student speech, say, archly advocating drug useas in the 2007 Bong Hits 4 Jesus casecan still be banned by authorities. (Posting the same sentiment from home outside of school hours is safer.) But a student raising life and death questions about matters of life and death in school hallways should be protected even under the more constrained free speech rights in public schools. Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, which just filed a letter of complaint to the school in this matter, suggests as much: We are very concerned that this is the first of many such instances that we are going to see as schools reopen and administrators try to manage the narrative of opening during a pandemic to their benefit.

Harris also notes, Only 14 states have legislation that protects student journalists from censorship by school officials. In the rest of the country, school officials in public schools have the ability to censor student journalists due to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which carved out an exception to Tinker for student journalists. In that 1988 case, the Supreme Court held that schools did not violate students First Amendment rights in killing news items about pregnancy and divorce. In an email, Harris colleague Mike Hiestand, the Student Press Law Centers senior legal counsel, was more blunt: Tinker is very much alive. (Both the [Supreme Court] decisionand the plaintiffs, who I took a free speech bus tour with a few years back.) I think its the school districts legal officeif they truly think they can stop students from peacefully sharing lawful, accurate information in the way students do in 2020 about their going back to school during a global pandemicthat may be dead. Give me a break.

Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Utah says in an email that punishing students for speechespecially speech on pressing matters of public concernisnt just harmful to individual students, although it certainly is that. Its harmful to the vibrancy of our conversations about school safety policies, because those students are some of the most important contributors to those conversations. And its harmful to our democracy, because we are inappropriately modeling to the next generation that government can simply stifle free speech to shelter itself from criticism.

Professor Sonja West, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Georgia adds that it appears that the school punished Hannah not for legitimatepedagogical reasons but becauseher photos were bad PR. This is exactly the kind of move the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. Censoring speech because its embarrassing may be very much in vogue these days, but that doesnt make it constitutional. And the state of Georgia, one would be remiss not to note, ranked fifth in the country for the number of total COVID-19 cases, eighth for cases per capita, and fourth in new cases in this past week.

In aninterviewwith CNN, Hannah Watters explained that she had posted the images early in the week because she was worried about the safety of everyone in the school building. My biggest concern is not only about me being safe, its about everyone being safe, because behind every teacher, student and staff member there is a family, there are friends, and I would just want to keep everyone safe. Americas schools are now ground zero for both ill-conceived pandemic planning and student endangerment, all dressed up under the guise of unfettered student choice and freedom. It is frankly astounding that those same same students who are free to die from a lethal virus are being singled out to be punished for chronicling it.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Original post:

In the Pandemic, Students Free Speech Rights Are More Important Than Ever - Slate

Students still have (some) First Amendment rights.Lisa McIntyre/Unsplash This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

Images of maskless students packing the hallways between classes at North Paulding High Schoolin Georgia became the viral symbols this week of a nationwide battle over whether and how to reopen schools in the midst of a pandemic that is still really not under control. It was widely reported on Monday and Tuesday that the schoollocated about an hour outside of Atlantahad reopened with a masks-optional policy, despite an outbreak among football players who had worked out in a crowded indoor gym, and despite multiple positive tests among players and school staff. The district has taken the position, despite recommendations fromCenters for Disease Control and Prevention health officials, that mask-wearing was a personal choice and that social distancing will not be possible to enforce in most cases. Virtual enrollment for the school had filled up rapidly, so most students had no other choice but to attend class in person or risk suspension.

The public health story was itself soon eclipsed by Thursdays news that two North Paulding students had been suspended for taking and posting other photos and a video. One of the teens, 15-year-old Hannah Watters, told BuzzFeed News she had received a five-day, out-of-school suspension for posting a photo and a video on Twitter. Watters announced Friday that her suspension had been rescinded. Meanwhile, the school went to remote learning on Thursday and Friday in order to assess and refine its health policies.

While the matter of Watters suspension seems to have been resolved, the larger question of student speech rights, especially on social media, and especially during a public health disaster, is far from settled. What Watters was doing was journalism. In addition to her viral photos, she had also been posting tallies of the proportions of students wearing masks in her classes. The viral photo she posted was captioned, Day two at North Paulding High School. It is just as bad. We were stopped because it was jammed. We are close enough to the point where I got pushed multiple go to second block. This is not ok. Not to mention the 10% mask rate.

School superintendent Brian Otott, who confirmed the North Paulding student suspension in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, initially would not say whether the discipline was connected with the photos. (He would not comment, he said, out of regard for the students privacy.)Otott told the media that the photo was taken out of context. But he also told parents and guardiansin a letterthat there is no question that the photo does not look good. Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them. BuzzFeed further reported that on Wednesday, school principal Gabe Carmona threatened any student found criticizing the school on social media. Anything thats going on social media thats negative or alike without permission, photography, thats video or anything, there will be consequences, Carmona told students over the intercom.

Put to one side that I have heard this week from numerous parents in Georgia about daughters who have been sent home from school for wearing spaghetti straps, miniskirts, or shorts deemed too short for public viewing. (How is science-based public health a matter of personal choice whereas girls dressing demurely is an enforceable mandate?) Lets focus instead on why a school district thought it could suspend a student for posting newsworthy images.

Watters said she was called into the schools office Wednesday and told she had violated three policies from the school districts student code of conduct: She had used her phone during class time; she had used her phone during school hours for social media; and she had posted photos of minors without consent on a social media platform. But as Watters told CNN, high school students are exempt from the district policy on phones (its targeted toward younger students), and she didnt post the photo until after school was over. She admitted to violating the policy on posting images of students to social media, but, of course, students violate that rule every day.

Everyone loves to mouth the platitude that students dont shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, as set forth in the landmark 1969 Tinker case, when the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student had the right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. But Tinkers holding has been eroded over the decades since, such that student speech can be regulated in schools to ensure that substantial disruptions do not occur on school grounds. Anxiety over new media, bullying, sexting, and porn have only added to the tensions felt by school administrators who try to regulate online conduct by putting blanket policies in place.

At least in theory, student speech, say, archly advocating drug useas in the 2007 Bong Hits 4 Jesus casecan still be banned by authorities. (Posting the same sentiment from home outside of school hours is safer.) But a student raising life and death questions about matters of life and death in school hallways should be protected even under the more constrained free speech rights in public schools. Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, which just filed a letter of complaint to the school in this matter, suggests as much: We are very concerned that this is the first of many such instances that we are going to see as schools reopen and administrators try to manage the narrative of opening during a pandemic to their benefit.

Harris also notes, Only 14 states have legislation that protects student journalists from censorship by school officials. In the rest of the country, school officials in public schools have the ability to censor student journalists due to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which carved out an exception to Tinker for student journalists. In that 1988 case, the Supreme Court held that schools did not violate students First Amendment rights in killing news items about pregnancy and divorce. In an email, Harris colleague Mike Hiestand, the Student Press Law Centers senior legal counsel, was more blunt: Tinker is very much alive. (Both the [Supreme Court] decisionand the plaintiffs, who I took a free speech bus tour with a few years back.) I think its the school districts legal officeif they truly think they can stop students from peacefully sharing lawful, accurate information in the way students do in 2020 about their going back to school during a global pandemicthat may be dead. Give me a break.

Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Utah says in an email that punishing students for speechespecially speech on pressing matters of public concernisnt just harmful to individual students, although it certainly is that. Its harmful to the vibrancy of our conversations about school safety policies, because those students are some of the most important contributors to those conversations. And its harmful to our democracy, because we are inappropriately modeling to the next generation that government can simply stifle free speech to shelter itself from criticism.

Professor Sonja West, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of Georgia adds that it appears that the school punished Hannah not for legitimatepedagogical reasons but becauseher photos were bad PR. This is exactly the kind of move the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. Censoring speech because its embarrassing may be very much in vogue these days, but that doesnt make it constitutional. And the state of Georgia, one would be remiss not to note, ranked fifth in the country for the number of total COVID-19 cases, eighth for cases per capita, and fourth in new cases in this past week.

In aninterviewwith CNN, Hannah Watters explained that she had posted the images early in the week because she was worried about the safety of everyone in the school building. My biggest concern is not only about me being safe, its about everyone being safe, because behind every teacher, student and staff member there is a family, there are friends, and I would just want to keep everyone safe. Americas schools are now ground zero for both ill-conceived pandemic planning and student endangerment, all dressed up under the guise of unfettered student choice and freedom. It is frankly astounding that those same same students who are free to die from a lethal virus are being singled out to be punished for chronicling it.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Original post:

In the Pandemic, Students Free Speech Rights Are More Important Than Ever - Slate Magazine

The internet is not what it was supposed to be. Early tech pioneers and the tech entrepreneurs who came after them imagined a world without borders that would bring us together, where all human knowledge would be available at our fingertips and everybody would have a voice. If there had been a motto for what the internet was supposed to stand for, it would have been collaboration, openness, freedom. But while we got some of that, we also got polarization, falsehoods, rising extremism that destabilizes societies, autocratic powers that undermine democracies, and giant tech companies that are eliminating privacy. We got a system that not only permits, but amplifies hate, bullying, and divisiveness.

Big Tech has started to timidly manage the content available on its platforms, and the debate over whether the internet should be a place where anyone can say anything is raging. Facebook took down Trump ads with a Nazi sign and a campaign video with COVID misinformation. Reddit banned 2,000 subreddits, including The_Donald, a forum with nearly 800,000 users, because of repeated violation of the platforms rules against hate speech, harassment, and content manipulation. Twitter started adding fact-check notices on tweets and even briefly suspended the Trump campaigns account for spreading false information. Molyneux, a Canadian white supremacist, was banned from YouTube. Trump was suspended on Twitch for hateful conduct.

Some people lambast these moves as putting tech giants on a slippery slope that leads straight to censorship. Others are more quietly concerned about what they mean for the future of free speech. But these arguments seem to overlook that the internet today is a driver of division and chaos because we have lost sight of a simple truth: To be truly inclusive, the internet needs to get comfortable with exclusion.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them, Austrian philosopher Karl Popper warned 75 years ago in laying out the Paradox of Tolerance. He raised the idea that a line needs to be drawn when the preservation of society is at stake. In other words, if we truly value democracy and the free-speech environment that have allowed Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and many other sites to flourish as places that showcase a multiplicity of voices, we need to urgently stop broadcasting the voices that threaten this environment. As UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson declared during the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Racist hate speech [] threatens to silence the free speech of its victims.

To be tolerated, an opinion has to respect the right of all humans to exist equally. As African American novelist and activist Robert Jones Jr. wrote: We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist. When someone is calling for a group of people to be discriminated against, for someone to be bullied, raped, or murdered, for a specific race or gender to be considered inferior, they are by definition making it impossible for the space they are occupying to be inclusive.

And while beliefs, truth, and interpretation of facts can be debated, it is incredibly dangerous to extend intellectual relativism to facts. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored, Aldous Huxley noted in the 1920s. A common understanding of facts is required to enable any kind of discussion, collaboration, and ultimately trust between human beings. When the frontier between reality and fiction is constantly undermined, the foundations of human society start to irremediably crumble.

Tech platforms laissez-faire approach to content moderationdraped in the flag of free speech and amplified by algorithms that are optimized to incite extreme emotionshas created a swamp where the strongest, loudest, and most outrageous voices triumph. By trying to be inclusive without setting boundaries and protections, weve allowed people who crave division and violence to have more reach than ever: Theyre undermining the fabric of the society that allows them to exist in the first place.

There are those who argue that imposing any kind of limitations on content will inevitably lead to governments muzzling dissidents and suppressing criticism. They seem to forget the continent where Im from. Europe has been doing this for a few decades, and while mistakes have been made, free speech is alive and well in most quarters. Following World War II, Western European democracies have implemented a series of measures that, while protecting free speech, ensure that it isnt absolute and takes into account other values and rights, such as human dignity and safety. In Germany, Austria, and France, for example, Holocaust denial is punishable by law. Germany has banned parties with Nazi ideologies.

This approach also works well in the business world. Across the globe, companies that want to be inclusive and ensure equal opportunities for all employees tend to have zero-tolerance policies toward hate speech, racism, discrimination, and fabrication of facts. In other words, to remain tolerant and competitive, they dont tolerate intolerance and misinformation.

When it comes to the internet, some of the largest platforms recognize the need to restrict speech. Wikipedia puts content through a fairly intensive vetting process focused on ensuring accuracy of facts. Social networks have spent considerable time defining comprehensive guidelines around whats acceptable and whats not and have hired moderators to enforce them. Facebook released community standards in 2018 outlining six different types of content that would be restricted, and it employs more than 15.000 moderators in the U.S. to enforce (at least some of) these restrictions. YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and others have rules that explicitly ban certain types of content. Unfortunately, judging by the results, these efforts have been inadequate. The rules have been a moving target and sanctions variable.

So, before we talk about whether we need new rules and guidelines for content on the internet, we need tech platforms to start implementing their own guidelines with strong conviction and the full force of their formidable resources. Tech used to be the place that attracted people who wanted to disrupt the status quo and were not afraid to go to war with the powerful, the rich, the established. Early tech pioneers were fearless in their conviction that they were building a better, more inclusive world. We need todays tech leaders to be equally fearless, for the world and for our democracies. Only by being intolerant of the intolerants will we realize the original dream of building an inclusive internet.

Maelle Gavet has worked in technology for 15 years. She served as CEO of Ozon, an executive vice president at Priceline Group, and chief operating officer of Compass. She is the author of a forthcoming book,Trampled by Unicorns: Big Techs Empathy Problem and How to Fix It.

View original post here:

It's time for tech platforms to stop tolerating the intolerable - Fast Company

Sixty billion dollar bribe. Energy corruption in Ohio. And, it all leads back to Donald Trump. Are you surprised that Donald Trump is behind the latest energy corruption? Professor Leah Stokes joins Thom Hartmann, to discus how the Trump administration lobbied for the bailout at the heart of the scandal! Stokes investigates the politics of energy and environmental policy in the United States. She is the author of "Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States."

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

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

AEP Bribe coal Donald Trump Energy First Energy Fossil Fuels Leah Stokes Natural Gas Pollution The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

Originally posted here:

Is Trump Behind $60 Billion Utility Bribe? - Free Speech TV

The Federal District Court made the right decision in tossing a lawsuit by the American Federation of Government Employees. As our Nicole Ogrysko reported, the suit was against the Office of Special Counsel.

The AFGEs beef was over guidance OSC handed out two years ago, saying that in-the-office displays of #resist code for oppose President Trump categorically or in-the-office advocating for (or against) impeachment could be construed as a violation of the Hatch Act. AFGE and its suing partners contend this was a violation of their Constitutional free speech rights.

The court gave several reasons for dismissing the suit. In essence it said nothing had happened to merit a lawsuit OCSs advisory-only opinion didnt cause any federal employee to actually get muzzled at work. The court decided that the free-speech claim wasnt ripe for review.

In my interview earlier this week with Special Counsel Henry Kerner, he pointed out that the Hatch Act doesnt bar all political speech, but rather only applies to talking, button-wearing, sign-displaying and money-seeking activities aimed at the success or failure of a candidate for a political office.

Maybe AFGE thought Trump was not a candidate barely halfway through his term. Since Calvin Coolidge, what president hasnot sought a second term?

The OSC guidance stands but, as the court noted, its only guidance anyhow.

Theres a bigger issue, though. Even if ranting for or against impeachment does not violate the Hatch Act, why do people want to drag their politics into the office in the first place? What about good taste and a bit of reticence that keeps relations among colleagues cordial and businesslike?

Most businesses nowadays and many government agencies have rules about speech and behavior that can cause disharmony or insult others. Its easy enough for the most benignly intentioned person to run afoul of what constitutes offensive speech in a society where everyone, it seems, is looking for ways to be victimized by offense, real or imagined. Many organizations caution about even mundane things. Tell a woman she looks great in that dress, or a man in those trousers, and you could get hauled into HR.

References to third parties, such as people of another race or gender, if offensive to one of the people actually in the conversation, can get the offender in trouble. Many years ago I had a boss a highly competent executive in charge of a profitable division advise me: Be careful about hiring young women, Tommy. They get pregnant and leave. Even in 1986 I thought, Did he really say that? Can you imagine that today?

Nastiness in todays politics has a sort of grandeur. Its infecting every part of life, if we let it. It wasnt always that way. In 1968 my mother worked in a small manufacturers rep office. The other six or so employees favored Richard Nixon. My mother preferred Hubert Humphrey. The day after the election, I recall her remarking about how gracious they all were that her candidate had lost. No one gloated. Or promised to burn down the other side.

Today leaders from clergy to business executives have had to caution against the corrosive effects of shouting about politics in their settings. For a federal office, such speech may not violate the Hatch Act, but that doesnt make it a good idea. Yes, President Trump certainly engenders strong feelings. All the more reason for maintaining of the great unwritten rules for office and bar settings: No religion, sex or politics.

The simple fact is that employers, including federal agencies, have the right to regulate speech within their walls when people are on the clock. Federal employees are otherwise free to attend rallies or protests, do this or that (except fundraising) on behalf of a candidate or cause (but not in their official capacity), or ruin any cookout they want with beer-induced political ranting.

Kerner put it this way. Just because the Hatch Act isnt violated agencies have policies on political expression and other things. Federal workers are expected to work for all taxpayers, and to keep politics largely out of the workplace. Wherever we work, were expected to do what were paid to do and not, as Kerner put it, bicker over our political views.

ByDavid Thornton

People who suffer from boanthropy believe themselves to be a cow or an ox.

Source: Wikipedia

View original post here:

Politics at work: Even if you can, its a bad idea - Federal News Network

It is accepted wisdom that we live in a free country. Every kid in grade school learns that. We have a free, if flawed, press. Even with the virus, were pretty much free to assemble; peaceful protest is legal. We can worship if we want, or we dont have to if we dont want. And, of course, we have the right to vote.

So, why would anyone even seriously question whether we live in a free country?

Because, in reality, were not nearly as free as wed like to think.

Just because we still have free-speech rights doesnt mean we feel free to exercise those rights, to say whats on our minds. What if were afraid to voice our opinions? Are we still free then?

Which brings us to a new study by the Cato Institute.

Lets start with this about how a majority of Americans are so afraid of what could happen to them if they express an unpopular opinion. Nearly two out of every three Americans (62 percent) say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because theyre worried that others might find their opinions offensive.

Right from the moment we won the revolution and sent the British packing, weve liked to think of ourselves as a courageous, tough people. Fear was not part of who we were. Yet now, two out of three of us are afraid to say whats on our minds, not because a dictator might lock us up but because someones feelings might be hurt. Welcome to America 2020.

Cato says this fear crosses party lines: 52 percent of Democrats have opinions theyre afraid to share, 59 percent of independents feel that way, and so do a staggering 77 percent of Republicans. And what might happen, they fear, is that if they say the wrong thing, they might get fired and lose their livelihoods; Cato found that one in three Americans (32 percent) who work say theyre worried about missing out on career opportunities, or losing their jobs, if their political opinions became known.

Given the political climate these days, Americans may have good reason to be afraid. But whatever this is, its not tough and its not courageous; its not who we like to think we are.

Here are some other numbers that should worry all of us:

Thirty-six percent of Americans who identify as strong conservatives think its okay to fire an executive for donating his or her own money to Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Biden clarifies comments comparing African American and Latino communities Kanye West may have missed deadline to get on Wisconsin ballot by minutes: report MOREs presidential campaign. Self-described strong conservatives the very people railing against the cancel culture think its okay to fire an executive simply for donating personal money to Bidens campaign.

If you think thats bad and it is consider this: 50 percent of those who identify as strong liberals say its okay to fire executives who personally donate money to President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Coronavirus talks on life support as parties dig in, pass blame Ohio governor tests negative in second coronavirus test MOREs reelection campaign.

Taking these results together indicates that a significant majority of Americans with diverse political views and backgrounds self-censor their political opinions, according to Cato. This large number from across demographic groups suggests withheld opinions may not simply be radical or fringe perspectives in the process of being socially marginalized. Instead, many of these opinions may be shared by a large number of people. Opinions so widely shared are likely shaping how people think about salient policy issues and ultimately impacting how they vote. But if people feel they cannot discuss these important policy matters, such views will not have an opportunity to be scrutinized, understood, or reformed.

This is the America we live in.

As a correspondent for CBS News for many years, I traveled to many countries, including authoritarian countries such as China and the old Soviet Union. As a general rule, people in places like that arent likely to share their opinions. There are consequences for holding the wrong opinions; you can get into serious trouble if you have unacceptable ideas.

No, Im not suggesting that the United States is like China or the old Soviet Union, where having an unpopular opinion might get you a train ride to a re-education camp or a jail cell in the gulag. But I am suggesting the obvious: People in a free country shouldnt be afraid to say whats on their minds.

But it looks like a majority of us are.

The government hasnt taken steps to curtail free speech. Not yet, anyway. And there may not be a need to do so: A majority of Americans are censoring themselves.

Bernard Goldberg, an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist, is a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. He previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

View post:

Afraid to speak your mind? Maybe we're not as 'free' as we think | TheHill - The Hill

Once upon a time, the biggest free speech battles in the country werent happening on college campuses or Fox News, and they had nothing to do with aggrieved Republican boomers or so-called cancel culture. A century ago, these conflicts unfolded on the streets of cities like Spokane, Washington, Missoula, Montana, and San Diego, California, where police doled out beatings and threw leftist protesters in jail by the hundreds for the crime of publicly exercising their First Amendment rights. Led by a revolutionary industrial labor union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), these free speech fights centered on the right of organizers to stand on soapboxes and speak out about capitalisms exploitation of workers. Soapboxing was a core component of the IWWs organizing strategy, so, in the 1900s, when authorities (who regarded organizers as a nuisance at best, and treasonous at worst) began cracking down on the ability of organizers to speak freely to their fellow workers, the Wobblies fought back.

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a prominent Wobbly organizer, was often at the epicenter of the free speech campaign. The radical labor organizer, who was particularly focused on lifting up women workers, traveled the country spreading the good word of revolutionary unionism, and became known as a fiery orator. In 1909, after the Spokane City Council made it illegal to hold a public meeting or give a speech downtown, the IWW put out a call for Wobblies from across the country to flood the city with protests; this action was later immortalized in the pamphlet, Wanted: Men to Fill the Jails of Spokane. We dont want you for riot or violence, Flynn reportedly wrote in a call to action published in the Industrial Worker. We need you to defend your organizations rights to free speech and free press. Are you game?

The Wobblies paid dearly for their commitment to free speech. Flynn was jailed multiple times for her efforts, and she and the other Wobblies were treated monstrously while imprisoned. Some of the women were sexually assaulted by guards, and the men were tortured by exposure to extreme temperatures. But the ones who survived kept fighting, and eventually brought the campaign to nearly two dozen cities. They kept up the pressure until 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act, and the Justice Department launched a massive 24-hour raid on every single IWW office in the country in an effort to shut them down. The next year, over 100 organizers were tried on charges of violating the Espionage Act, which barred anyone from voicing public opposition to WWI or obstructing the war effort (for example, by encouraging young men to resist the draft, which the IWW often did from soapboxes). Emma Goldman and her associate Alexander Berkman, two of the periods best-known anarchists, were arrested under the Espionage Act for their anti-war agitation, and were eventually deported to Russia with other purged radicals on a ship dubbed the Soviet Ark.

The persecution of the Wobblies is an instructive example of who has had to suffer the real price of crackdowns on free speech in the United States. Time and time again, we have seen those who advocate for social progress face blacklisting, punishment, and imprisonment for speaking out.

From slavery, to the struggle for civil rights, to today, the government has proffered the rights of truly free speech on some and not others, author P.E. Moskowitz wrote in their 2019 book, The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent, which analyzes decades of leftist repression and the evolving definition of free speech. We don't need to look very far back to know that free speech is a conditional freedom in this country, and that those conditions are nearly always defined by those in power.

Read the rest here:

Free Speech Fights Have Historically Targeted the Left - Teen Vogue

Left, right, rich and poor millions fear expressing their opinions today.

A culture of fear is undermining ordinary peoples freedom of expression, as a new report into self-censorship in the US attests.

The headline statistic of the report, produced by the Cato Institute, is that 62 per cent of Americans agree with the statement, The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive. This figure has risen from 58 per cent in 2017.

The report demonstrates a number of key points. One is that concern for the health of free speech is not the preserve of the right. Though conservatives are more likely to say they self-censor (77 per cent), just over half of liberals (52 per cent) and nearly two thirds of moderates (64 per cent) say they do, too. Indeed, strong liberals are the only group who disagree with the above statement by a majority and even among them, there has been a 12 percentage-point increase since 2017 in those who feel they have to self-censor. This is a greater increase than that among moderates and conservatives.

As for the percentage of those who fear for their job prospects due to their views, this is very similar across political lines: 34 per cent of conservatives, 31 per cent of liberals and 30 per cent of moderates worry they could miss out on job opportunities or get fired if their political views became known.

Free-speech worries cross ethnic divides, too. Sixty-five per cent of Latino Americans one percentage point more than white Americans have political views they are afraid to share. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of African Americans are in the same position.

Likewise, income is not a major factor. Sixty per cent of those with incomes in excess of $100,000 hold opinions they fear sharing, while 58 per cent of those with incomes under $20,000 have the same anxieties.

Obviously, caveats need to be added here. Any such investigation runs into some methodological problems. For example, how are we to define the various political groupings used? And what exactly does self-censorship mean to different people?

Still, the situation the report reveals is impossible to ignore. While those who deny the existence of cancel culture present free-speech concerns as the preserve of the rich and powerful, huge numbers of ordinary people feel the need to conceal their opinions out of fear of a potential backlash. This political landscape is far from healthy, and the statistics suggest things are getting worse.

One thing that may have made matters worse, as Tom Slater has noted recently on spiked, is that even supposed leftists now defend the right of employers to sack people for their views. How these people can reconcile their support for workers rights with their rejection of a workers right to hold certain opinions, even privately, is anyones guess.

But it is not just leftists who are undermining free speech. Many on the right indulge in cancel culture, too. In the UK recently, Tory MPs have joined pile-ons against BBC journalists for views they expressed years ago. A few years back, a woman was hounded out of her job by a right-wing outrage mob for shouting Nazi at a Trump supporter .

The Cato report reveals that 31 per cent of Americans say they would back the sacking of a business executive if they donated to Donald Trumps campaign. Meanwhile, 22 per cent said they would support the sacking of someone for donating to Joe Bidens campaign.

Free speech is a universal right, which must be defended by all and for all. This report reminds us that there is still much work to be done.

Paddy Hannam is a spiked intern.

Lets cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked unlike so many things these days is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even 5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Visit link:

The threat to free speech is universal - Spiked

Scary Mommy and Westend61/Getty

By now, most of us have seen or at least heard about the video circulating with the Frontline doctors making bogus claims about coronavirus. In the video, people in white lab coats stand in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. and make a bunch of idiotic claims about COVID-19, for example, that the studies on hydroxychloroquine are by fake pharma companies and thatmasks dont prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The doctors in the video call themselves Americas Frontline Doctors even though none are actually on the front line of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several are opthamologists, and one, Stella Immanuel, is known for her beliefs that certain gynecological issues are brought on by having sex with demons in dreams and that lizard spirits with alien DNA run the country. This is not hyperbole or hearsay. She has videos up on YouTube and is dead-ass serious.Dead. Ass. Serious.

Anywho. The radical right-wing site Breitbart published the Frontline Doctors video because why wouldnt they, and their nutty conspiracy-humping followers shared it far and wide. And, in more WTF this cannot be reality news, the idiot president of the United States and his equally idiotic son Donald Jr. shared portions of the video on Twitter.

We are living in a time when the president of the United States, with complete sincerity, puts his trust in a doctor who literally believes human-reptile hybrids run the government and reproductive problems come from dream-sex with demons. So thats fun.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all removed the video, each stating that it violated their COVID-19 misinformation policies. Rightly so. We have enough to debate without entertaining absolute fucking nonsense.

Those who fall for the nonsense in the video feel that removing it is a violation of their rights or the rights of those who posted the video. They believe that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are part of a massive conspiracy, that tech giants are in bed with the deep state, are controlling the dissemination of information, and are colluding with big pharma. For these people, the fact that the video is being removed is evidence of its authenticity.

Meanwhile, there are also plenty of people who acknowledge that though the information being spread by this video is wrong and dangerous and even deadly, we still shouldnt censor this video or others like it. Of course this information is dangerous, they say, but I dont believe in censorship. They say its a slippery slope. They ask why Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be allowed to be the arbiters of truth.

On May 28, Trump issued an executive order preventing online censorship. The order reads as if it were written by an angry teenager who got mad when his teacher gave him a bad grade that he deserved. It claims that every American has a right to have a voice and have that voice heard in debate. Its no coincidence that this order was issued around the time Twitter was placing notices over some of Trumps tweets.

What Trump really wants is carte blanche to spread whatever lies necessary to clinch the coming election.

But what Trump, and a whole lot of other people, fail to understand, is that censorship, as it relates to free speech, is a the government is not allowed to do it thing. It has fuck-all to do with a private company (like a social media platform) determining that certain information is not only bogus, but dangerous, and deciding to block that information from the platform.

There is a parallel supreme court decision (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988) that says students do not have the right to print material in a school newspaper over the objections of the schools administration.The parallel here is that those who participate in a social media platform are under an obligation to adhere to the rules of that platform, the same as students who participate in a school district areunder an obligation to adhere to the rules of that district. The platform makes the rules.

If peopleincluding Trumpdont like the way social media platforms manage the information shared there, they are perfectly free to go to a different platform. They are free to create their own blog or website or whatever. No one is censoring anyone from posting online. A social media platform is not THE online. Its its own separate entity, like a business in a neighborhood or a school in a district. Controlling what goes on its site is not the same as a government censoring its people or violating their right to free speech. Twitter can kick you out of its platform for ranting and raving about demon sex the same way any other business owner can kick you out of its store for ranting and raving about demon sex.The point is that the ranting and raving represents a clear danger to other people on the platform.

Social media platforms absolutely should censor these stupid AF informational videos from Front Line Doctors and other similarly dangerous misinformation. They have every right to demand credibility and accountability from the people who use their platform to share information.

Again, for the people in the back: a social media platform removing your shit is not a violation of free speech. Thats for my fellow lefties, too, by the way. There is no slippery slope here. There is not even a fucking slope to make slippery. We can get mad if something we post gets taken down, but none of us should cry that our rights are being violated. Because theyre not.

Read the original:

If You Think Social Media Is Violating Your Free Speech, You Need To Sit Down And Listen To Me - Scary Mommy

In this clip from the latest #RandiRhodesShow, Randi discusses the stalemate around a new CARES act, unemployment payments, and mail-in voting.

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.

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

#RandiRhodesShow CARES ACT Free Speech TV FSTV Greg Grandin mail-in votes Unemployment Benefits voting by mail

Go here to see the original:

What is the G.O.P's plan? No one knows! - Free Speech TV

In a campaign season when civil discourse seems headed to another record low, rhetorical excess has just been given a little extra boost.

For three decades Tennessee has made it a minor crime to put knowingly false statements about a candidate in oppositional campaign literature one of the more explicit restrictions on political speech in the nation's law books. But last week a state judge said it was a bridge way too far over the First Amendment.

A prominent democracy reform group, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws, sued and won the right to declare in print something hyperbolic in the extreme: That a Republican state legislator is "literally Hitler," the Nazi fuhrer who died in Germany three-quarters of a century ago.

The point, the group said, was to produce a campaign flyer with obviously false assertions in order to test the law, which it says has been unconstitutionally stifling properly provocative satire and criticism of state officials.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"The framers of our Constitution believed that robust public speech and debate would be essential to self-government," it said. "This law tried to put its thumb on the scale, favoring the very people who enacted it Tennessee state lawmakers to the detriment of members of the voting public."

Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle of Nashville agreed last week, declaring the law a violation of both the state and federal Constitutions. Its main flaw, she said, was that it punished false speech against a candidate but does nothing to rein in lies in support of a politician, "viewpoint dicrimination" not permitted by the First Amendment. She also said government regulators should not be in the business of distinguishing truth from falsity and that the law bans far more speech than Tennessee could ever punish, besides.

"For emphatic and memorable communication in its campaign materials opposing candidates, the plaintiff uses the literary device of knowingly stating a literally false statement about a candidate in the context of satire, parody and hyperbole," the judge said in her nine-page ruling, and that's one of the Sensible Election Laws group's free speech rights.

The organization was taking on state Rep. Bruce Griffey, a Republican whose first term has been marked by proposing a wave of controversial, conservartuive culture war measures, including a ban on refugee resettlement in Tennessee and a requirement that students use school bathrooms that correspond with their sex at birth. And in January, he proposed a bill that would authorize the state to chemically castrate some people convicted of sex offenses against minors a policy in place in at least seven states.

The good government group tweeted it would begin distributing its leaflets, which say "Bruce Griffey is LITERALLY HITLER" at the top and, underneath that, "Bruce Griffey: an agenda the Nazis would love."

The 1989 law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $50 fine and 10 days in jail to distribute "campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in an election" if any "statement charge, allegation, or other matter contained therein with respect to such candidate is false." It makes no exceptions for satire, hyperbole or parody.

The state attorney general's office has not announced whether it will appeal.

Griffey is solidly favored to win a second term in November in a rural district west of Nashville.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See the original post:

Tenn. judge gives OK to call candidate 'literally Hitler' - The Fulcrum

After open white nationalist Jeremy Joseph Christian attempted to attack counter-protesters with a bat at a March for Speech rally in April 2017, the police confiscated his bat. Less than a month later, he hurled vehement racial slurs and hate speech at two Muslim teenage girls on a Portland train. Three men stepped in to defend the girls. Christian stabbed two of them to death. He walked into his arraignment shouting: Free speech or die, Portland! You got no safe place. This is America. Get out if you dont like free speech. You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism. One week later, the Patriot Prayer group hosted the Trump Free Speech Rally on federally controlled property across the Portland City Hall.

The States contextualization of action as it pertains to speech typically shifts at their convenience. Christians expression of white nationalism wasnt deemed a threat to State security until he committed double murder. Is that what it takes to connect white supremacy and violence? Are we to pause our concern until theres open fire or a body beneath one of the vehicles driving into Black Lives Matter protests?

The truck driver who drove into a protest on the I-35W bridge was released without charges. Political context was stripped from the story to his advantage. Protesters, demonstrators and activists arent granted that same prerogative. The spate of vehicles driving into Black Lives Matter protests this summer resembles the car attack at the Unite the Right Rally that killed counter-protester Heather Heyer. Media coverage has waned on the phenomenon in proportion to the governments inaction.

Weve seen the video thumbnails. We know the same militant violence thats professedly targeted at violent protesters is exerted against the Black community, with or without provocative conduct. However cautious or refined a protest for racial justice may be is irrelevant to State powers that have a deep history and present of benefitting from the incarceration of Black people.

In my last column, I discussed the fundamental disparities in peoples right to speech in the United States. For this reason, the conjecture that a protest deserves respect while a riot does not is a dangerous myth. Opposing police brutality and authoritarianism in and of itself requires acting outside the barriers of what the government deems acceptable.

Distinguishing between riot and protest shreds the political conditions from acts of insurrection. It is not an arbitrary uprising. No amount of property damage compares to a single human life. If rioting cant be considered a legitimate form of protest, what is the alternative method to extinguishing an increasingly fascistic government?

View post:

Skoog: Action, ideology and the in-between of speech - Minnesota Daily

Question:Why was an anti-abortion group allowed to set up in the middle of the Downtown Appleton Farm Market? The group had very graphic, disturbing posters that were inappropriate for a family event. Does this group pay for space like the farmers do? And with social distancing supposedly in effect at the market, why were children without masks allowed to come within 6 feet of shoppers to hand out anti-abortion literature? I left without buying anything.

Answer:The abortion protesters who appeared at the farm market on July 11 and 25 have caused a significant amount of concern among vendors and customers, but there is little that Appleton Downtown Inc., the organizer of the farm market, can do about it.

Jennifer Stephany, executive director of ADI, said the abortion protesters are not a permitted vendor of the farm market and donot pay for space. Rather, theywalkin and station themselves at the intersection of College Avenue and Morrison Street.

"ADI has been informed by legal counsel and the Appleton Police Department that the First Amendment protects demonstrators such as those that have been on College Avenue during the farm market in recent weeks," Stephany said.

RELATED:Evers issues statewide order to wear masks indoors through September

WATCHDOG Q&A:Duke Behnke answers your questions

The Downtown Appleton Farm Market is operating with precautions, including masks for all vendors, to minimize the spread of the coronavirus.(Photo: Courtesy of Appleton Downtown Inc.)

ADI staff asked the protesters to relocate to open space in Houdini Plaza or to an area outside the farm market, but they refused.

"We feel like our hands are really tied," Stephany said. "It's a very challenging situation for us."

Appleton police responded to the farm market for complaints about the protesters and determined their activities were protected as free speech.

"They were in a public place," officer Meghan Cash said. "Even though an event permit for the market was in place,it is not a private location."

Regarding the second concern,ADI requires its staff, vendors and service providers to wear masks and socially distance to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. It also strongly encourages people attending the farm market to wear masks and socially distance.

That's as far as it cango.

"Since there is no legal requirement to wear masks or socially distance on the public streets, ADI does not have the ability to stop interaction between those persons legally at the farm market," Stephany said.

Gov. Tony Eversissued anexecutive order Thursday requiringWisconsin residents to wear face masks, but it's only applicable indoors.

Post-Crescent reporter Duke Behnke answers your questions about local government. Send questions todbehnke@gannett.comor call him at 920-993-7176.

Read or Share this story: https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2020/07/31/free-speech-protects-abortion-protesters-appleton-farm-market/5525459002/

Read the original post:

'We feel like our hands are really tied': Appleton farm market can't expel abortion protesters - Post-Crescent