The protests that erupted in opposition to police brutality against Black Americans this year have been met with disquieting, militarized responses by law enforcement agencies across the country. One of the most egregious examples occurred in Portland, Oregon, where the Department of Homeland Securitydeployedofficers to restore order over the objections of local authorities.

The grim scenes led tocomparisonsbetween the United States and authoritarian regimes throughout history. The most conspicuous analogue may be last summers protests over Hong Kongs independence from China. But despite clear tactical similarities between the anti-police brutality demonstrations in Portland and the widely celebrated pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, the U.S. government opted to meet the Portland protesters with the same degree of force it denounced when perpetrated by the Chinese government, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

Both Hong Kong and the United States saw historically large outpourings of dissenters in response to moments that typify longstanding problems. In Hong Kong, a bill permitting the extradition of fugitives to mainland China stirred concern among citizens that the China-friendly government wascedingthe territorys semiautonomous status, whereas in the United States, the police killing of George Floyd served as the latest chapter in the countrysignoble historyof state-sanctioned anti-Blackness.

Hong Kong demonstratorsdefacedbuildings that displayed signs of Chinese sovereignty, and in Portland protesterstoppled statuesof historical American figures who owned slaves. In response to the paramilitary tactics utilized by police in both cities, protesters employed sometimes makeshift protective gear: tear gas was dispersed withleaf blowers, filtered viagas masks, and blocked withumbrellas. The demonstrators also used shields to defend themselves againstbatons, and they used lasers to thwartfacial recognition softwareand other forms ofpolice surveillance.

Law enforcement crackdowns on the demonstrations were similar too, made especially striking given the contrast between Chinas single-party regime and American democracy. In Hong Kong,security forces from the mainlandjoined efforts to repel protesters, while DHS sent camouflaged and maskedofficerswithout ID badges to Oregon. Law enforcement in both jurisdictions used minor infractions likejaywalkingto police the protests, andundercover officersandunmarked vehiclesroamed the streets. Predictably, the number of arrests in areas around the protests rocketed up while thenumber of protestersarrested in Portland is much smaller thanin Hong Kong, the percentage by population is nearly identical. Andparamilitary unitssuppressedthe press in both cities, blocking cameras, shoving and shooting journalists with nonlethal munitions, and pepper spraying news crews.

Both governments also employed invasive surveillance technology to gather information on the demonstrations. Authorities used social media monitoring toidentifyandarrestprotesters. Hong Kong policeseizedmore than 3,700 cell phones from protesters, precipitating the worry among activists that the phones were being implanted with spyware. TheNationrecently revealed that DHSusedcell phone cloning technology to intercept communications, leading to demands for an investigation from members of Congress.

But the same U.S. officials who criticized Americans demonstrating against racial injustice heaped unreserved praise upon the mass movement in Hong Kong. Less than two months after President Trumpdescribedthe Chinese governments intervention in Hong Kong as smothering Hong Kongs freedom, hethreatenedthat if Oregon Gov. Kate Brown did not arrest the Portland demonstrators, he would have the Federal Government do it for her. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnelldecriedBeijing as seeking to snuff out dissent in Hong Kong six months before hecalledthe Portland protesters an alliance of convenience between angry criminals. Attorney General Bill Barrcondemnedthe Chinese government for its values antitheticalto those we share in Western liberal democracies. Three months later, hecharacterizedthe marches in Portland as an assault on the government of the United States.

There are many other examples of violent government suppression of peaceful demonstrators around the United States, from the New York City Police Department assaulting peaceful protesters onnumerousoccasionsto the use oftear gasoutside the White House to clear the way for a presidential photo-op. Police misconductescalatedviolence at more than 180 protests nationwide.

We should be wary of the normalization of authoritarian suppression of dissent in the United States. We know too that Trump hasrefused to acceptthe premise of a peaceful transfer of power and advocated forvoter intimidation, again echoingauthoritarian rhetoric.

In the aftermath of Hong Kongs protests, Chinapassed legislationundermining the citys status as a democratic entity. American democracy has the benefit of being more mature, but we must still push back against the forces working to undermine it.

View post:

Disturbing Parallels in Crackdowns on Protesters in the U.S. and Hong Kong - brennancenter.org

The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America, by Ellis Cose Amistad hide caption

The First Amendment and its protection of free speech may be the best-known and, possibly, the most cherished of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But there is also a long-running battle over what the limits of free speech should be. And this election year, with its heated and sometimes hateful rhetoric and challenges to the tech companies to referee it all is certainly placing that battle at the forefront.

That's just one reason editor and columnist Ellis Cose's latest book The Short Life And Curious Death Of Free Speech in America is so timely.

On why he titled the book 'the short life' of freedom of speech

The First Amendment by definition is the First Amendment, you know? It was the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791. So it's been with us almost since we have had a constitution. And the assumption that most people have is that it's just a right that's always been there, that's always been respected and that we've always enjoyed as Americans. But that's not quite true. In 1798, we have the Alien and Sedition Acts, which in effect nullify the First Amendment. It made it illegal to criticize the then-Federalist government. It made it illegal to speak out and to do the things that we think are routine to do now.

On the relative newness of the concept of freedom of speech

It grew directly out of World War I. When the United States government got involved in the war, we immediately passed a couple of new laws. One was the Espionage Act, the other was the Sedition Act, which was an amendment to the Espionage Act. And what they what those laws did, as the original Alien and Sedition Acts did, was to essentially make it illegal to criticize the government.

And so you had any number of individuals and institutions who were jailed because they were critical of the draft. And you had a number of activists, you know, including the group that later became came together as the ACLU, who said: 'Wait a minute. Don't we have freedom of speech in this country? Can't we speak out?' And so, slowly, we began to come up with a modern conception of the First Amendment.

On president's policies threatening freedom of speech

In many respects, I mean, at least Obama and George Bush had respect for the Constitution, and they understood what it meant. But when you go into the current administration, you have an administration that doesn't even believe in truth, that does not believe in constitutional process and does not believe in rights at all, as generally understood. And what we now have [is] an entire government apparatus designed to foster falsehoods, and that endangers the whole idea that our country is based on, which is that we can get to some kind of universal truth from which we can proceed to have a better government and a better society as a result.

On some people on the left and the right not respecting freedom of speech

Well, my take is that we as a people tend to understand the First Amendment in a very specific and personal way. We tend to believe that the First Amendment says that we have a right to free speech as long as you say things that I agree with. That tends to be the way that the First Amendment is viewed on the left; it tends to be the way that it's viewed on the right. So there's a tension there's always has been a tension between the idea of free speech and the practice of it in the real world when people don't like ideas that they don't like and they don't want to hear them. And I think that's just one of the things we need to struggle with as a society.

Read more here:

'The Short Life And Curious Death Of Free Speech In America' Examines The First Amendment - NPR

In some ways, you find out if you truly believe in certain fundamental rights when you are asked to apply them equally to someone with whom you are completely at odds.

I have long been a staunch supporter of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: 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."

Having been a journalist since I joined my high school newspaper freshman year, it is easy to see why at least one part of the amendment particularly appeals to me. While I agree we need rules in place to try to make journalists use this right responsibly which I fully recognize does not always happen I believe freedom of the press is a hugely important part of a democracy.

But if I am being honest, even as I will staunchly defend it as a journalist and as an American, I dont always want to do so. Sometimes my belief in the most fundamental American right there is the right to freely say what you think is at odds with the part of me that says, what about human decency?

To this day, one of the most stomach-churning examples of this I can think of involved Westboro Baptist Church, which went around the country holding anti-gay protests outside military funerals. Everything about what they were doing was reprehensible to me and made me feel physically ill. And I will fully admit that when the case of a man suing the church for picketing his sons funeral went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a big part of me wanted them to lose. The part that resisted was the part that recognized if you keep chipping away at the right of free speech, eventually you will have nothing left.

Excerpt from:

First Amendment is for all - even opponents | Powhatan Today - Richmond.com

Illustration by Slate 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.

On Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. Eastern, the Free Speech Project will host Do We Need a First Amendment 2.0? with Neil Richards and other experts on free speech. For more information and to RSVP, visit the New America website.

The First Amendment has long been considered a bedrock of American democracy. In the so-called marketplace of ideas, the more information, the better. Thats why many once assumed the internet would be a tool for democracy, ushering in a new age of engaged citizenship. Yet the halcyon days of the early internet have now given way to growing disillusionment not only with rising hate speech and disinformation on social media, but also with corporate activityincluding data harvesting and surveillanceprotected under the First Amendment. In our digital age, some have started to wonder: Is the United States in need of a First Amendment 2.0?

Recently, I spoke with Neil Richards, the Koch distinguished professor in law at Washington University in St. Louis, who specializes in privacy law, information law, and free speech. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed the ways the First Amendment has changed throughout American history, the fraught relationship between privacy and free speech, and how we can start to reconceptualize the First Amendments place in our society.

Chloe Hadavas: In general, how has the internet changed the ways we think about free speech?

Neil Richards: In a digital age, it is a lot easier for us to express ourselves, but its also much easier for motivated actors to spread misinformation, lies, propaganda, and hate. The challenge is to take advantage of the tremendous communicative potential of digital technologies, from the internet, to smartphones, to social networking and search engines, but to address the problems that these technologies pose as well.

Im old enough to remember the onset of the internet in American society. In the mid-1990s, I was a law student, and I remember the revolutionaryalmost propheticlanguage that internet evangelists used to talk about this technology. And I think they were exactly right that it was revolutionary, but like all revolutions, some bad came along with good. The internet makes it easier for critics of the government to get their message out. It made it easier for Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning to engage in courageous whistleblowing. But it also made it easier for Cambridge Analytica and Facebook to warp the processes of democracy in the 2016 presidential election and the Brexit referendum, for the NSA to drastically expand its surveillance capacities after 9/11, and for aspiring populist demagogues to spread lies and misinformation, and half-truths and full-blown conspiracy theories. And thats the challenge.

Reckoning with that challenge requires us to reckon with the new media of the digital age, just as the First Amendment of the 20th century had to reckon first with mass newspapers, and then with other forms of mass media, such as radio and television.

Have there ever been any points in American historyperhaps when those new forms of media arrived in the 20th centurywhen the First Amendment has reached a similar moment of crisis?

The interesting thing about the First Amendment is were used to talking about it like its always been the same. Americans, since the Revolution, have talked about the First Amendment as if it was supremely protected. But in reality, the modern First Amendment really only starts getting invented in the aftermath of the First World War, in opinions by [Supreme Court Justices] Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis and [Judge] Learned Hand. Before the 1940s, federal and state governments had pretty broad powers to punish expression that they didnt like. For example, one of the first significant congressional enactments was the Sedition Act of 1798, which basically made it a crime to criticize the government. You see, from the 19th century to 1920s, theres suppression of all kinds of dissident speechwhether its by abolitionists, suffragists, advocates of free love, anarchists, socialists, or communists.

So the First Amendment has had a series of crises, and I think that should be expected, because free expression is very often how we deal with social unrest. Its always been contested, and it continues to be deeply contested todaynot just in the context of digital expression, but at the increased willingness of American courts to extend First Amendment protections to a whole host of corporate activities, whether thats money in politics, or advertising, or even, in some cases, the processing of personal data.

One of the reasons its contested is that, as scholar Tim Wu has written, the First Amendment isnt well suited to deal with the use of speech as a tool to suppress speech. In other words, some peoples unrestrained speech can threaten others ability to express themselves. How do you think about that tension?

One of the hardest problems in First Amendment law is the problem of hate speech, because we know that the expression of hatred, particularly against marginalized or historically oppressed groups, is not just hurtful, but its silencingand stigmatizing. On the other hand, we know that giving the government the power to separate good speech from bad speech is also tremendously dangerous and can be used as a tool of oppression and tyranny.

So, you can see the difficulty of this problem in the divergent approaches of the United States and, for example, Canada and Western Europe. In the United States, judges have largely taken the [Oliver Wendell] Holmes position, which is that because we doubt our ability to determine the truth, we have to be really reluctant to regulate speech based upon its content, particularly upon its viewpoint. By contrast, European and Canadian judges applying their own fundamental rights that are analogous to the First Amendment have worried less about that problem and have authorized not just civil, but also criminal punishments for targeted racial abuse, for example.

The virtue of the American approach is that it is maximally speech protective, and it eliminates the risk that the government will use powers to regulate the tone or the content of political debates as a proxy for censorship. On the other hand, the American approach really does run the risk that dissent will be silenced, that real political damage can result, and that the status quo can be preserved. Charting a middle way between these two paths is really difficult.

What does that middle way look like right now?

I think you could imagine a jurisprudence that would allow wide-ranging discussion on matters of public concern, including race relations, but also recognize that its appropriate to prohibit and in certain cases punish racial abuse, cross burnings, harassment, stalking, and other forms of the use and abuse of words that cross a line where what is being expressed really has little value, but is undoubtedly harmful and stigmatizing.

The ultimate problem here is that we human beings do so many things with wordsgood and bad, honorable and evil, and many, many things in between. And it is asking too much to come up with a test that judges and courts can apply that separates out the harmful from the harmless with perfect precision. Ultimately, we have to realize that human beings are imperfect, and judges are human beings, too, and that law can only do so much to either encourage a culture of thoughtful free expression, or to restrain the uses of words that are undeniably harmful.

We have to look to other factors like our political culture; our belief not just in education, but in civic education; and the production of a society in which we are treated in equal ways that transcend histories of marginalization and oppressionand that ultimately, we have a robust, independent, professional free press that has the resources and the legal protection to ask difficult questions of our leaders, to hold them accountable for their mistakes and their biases, to praise them where appropriate, and to not be denigrated as the enemy of the people by aspiring demagogues. And that when our politicians cross that line and malign the press, we hold them accountable, and we vote them out.

Much of the discussion about online discourse seems to conflate the First Amendment specifically with free speech more broadly. How does that connect to the debate over content moderation?

One of the practical developments that weve seen, as weve shifted to more political debate and communication by politicians and other leaders through social media, is that weve come to realize the tremendous gatekeeping power that social media companies have over our system of free expressionand also, the fact that many of these companies were and are wholly unequipped to act as those kind of gatekeepers, whether we call them content moderators or censors.

So much of our public debate has fallen to advertiser-supported private companies offering free services, whose interests are often to make money or boost engagement or sell ads, rather than free and fair debate. Very often, their marketing departments have wrapped themselves in the language of the Constitution, but they havent really understood the depth of their responsibilities and, more importantly, the complexity of the problem of separating out good expression from bad expression. But it is encouraging that it in recent years, both Twitter and Facebook have finally started to grapple with their problems. Its just taken them far too long.

The First Amendment is often weaponized by corporations not just to abdicate responsibility, but to undermine individuals privacy. When are the two at odds with each other?

Theres often been a tension between privacy and the First Amendment. But as I argued in my book, Intellectual Privacy, while theyre sometimes in conflict, we also need zones of privacy in our lifewhat I call intellectual privacyto make up our minds about the world and our place in it: to read freely, to think boldly, free of monitoring or interference, and to test out our potentially crazy ideas in confidence before were ready to share them with the world.

When it comes to privacy and free expression, its worth keeping a few simple rules in mind. First, we need to have both. Both are human rights, and both are necessary for the kinds of political freedom and commitment to eccentric individuality that Western societies say that they value. Second, most of the time, when the press is reporting on matters of policy, and even the personal lives of public servants, on balance the First Amendment should win, because people have a right to know what is being done in their name. Third, just because we allow scrutiny into the policies and politicians professional lives, doesnt mean that ordinary people shouldnt have a right to privacy. And fourth and finally, we need to understand that the role of the First Amendment is to [support] free citizens of a democratic society. That doesnt mean that anything a company does with data, or any information that a company might collect for a commercial purpose, should be treated with the same constitutional reverence as an editorial on the front page of the New York Times criticizing the president.

And when we look at invasive data-based surveillance models, when we look at tech companies following us around the internet so they can sell us shoes, when we look at companies like Clearview AI, whose business model seemingly consists of scraping data to train facial recognition models that can be sold to law enforcement and ICE, we should think about the values that are at stake here. The First Amendment is a fundamental right. But its a right in pursuit of human freedom. And when corporations and purveyors of ad tech and A.I. try to wrap themselves in the First Amendment to prevent regulation of their dangerous business practices, I think we should we should recognize those claims for the charade which they are.

What do you think of proposals, such as Emily Bazelons recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, that the First Amendment may need a rethink today?

I think the most important thing about these arguments is that Im encouraged that were having these kinds of conversations. Its essential in a democratic society that we have serious, wide-ranging conversations about what we value, and what kinds of expression are important, and why. Ironically, its broad protection for free expression that allows us to have those conversations in the first place. But when it comes to specific issues, such as hate speech, I think the European approach has a lot of merits to it and should be taken seriously.

The problem here, though, is less one of the First Amendment and more one of constitutional politics in general and judicial politics in particular. If we care about the First Amendment, we have to care about its ideas, of course, but we also have to care about the institutions by which our system of free expression is protected and preserved in practice. And that means not just protecting, nurturing, and safeguarding the business models of a free press, but also interrogating the ways we select judges and asking potential judges about their views. Its really unfortunate in recent years that the primary qualification for politicians to nominate judges is ideology first, and qualities like experience and temperament and, for lack of a better word, judgment second.

Were used to talking about the First Amendment as if it is an abstract thing. But its a lot more than that. And its so important that we cant just talk in philosophical terms if we care about free expression and human rights. We need to worry about our social norms and our institutions as well. When we talk about institutions like the press, social networks, and the federal judiciary, I wouldnt say I lose hope, but theres a lot of work for us to do.

We need to have robust, uninhibited conversations about what kinds of a First Amendment we want. The good news is that even though theres a large disagreement about what the First Amendment should protect, almost everyone agrees that it does protect that kind of conversation. So, as a lawyer, its my job to be neurotic and worry about potential problems. But as a human being, as a member of society, I am nevertheless hopeful for the future.

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

Read the original here:

What Kind of First Amendment Do We Want? - Slate

I was raised to understand the importance of voting and elections. This year, Ive been moved to join in how that system works, as well.

Like many, I accompanied my parents every time they voted. As a young child, I still remember being excited when poll workers would also give me an I Voted sticker. At the time, I didnt quite understand what an important service these individuals were providing to our country.

Voting is the ultimate expression of the freedom of petition, one of the five core rights protected by our First Amendment.

Often discussion around elections has been centered on registering and educating voters and ultimately turning out the vote. And those discussions are still very important. The Freedom Forum launched our Freedom of Petition resources and programs to remind people how voting and the First Amendment go hand in hand.

A unique topic of discussion in the 2020 elections is the need for young people to become poll workers. Traditionally many of these volunteers are older, but with the global pandemic, many states sounded the alarm that their reliable volunteers of the past wouldnt be able to participate this year.

I honestly had never before considered being a poll worker. I registered to vote as soon as I turned 18, Ive volunteered for campaigns before I was old enough to vote and now, as a registered voter, Ive consistently voted either on Election Day, early voting or absentee. However, the more I heard about the need for poll workers, the more I knew it was time to step up my civic engagement. What would happen if there werent enough poll workers? Would people have a harder time being able to vote and truly exercise their right to self-governance?

With that in mind, I went online and signed up. I am very fortunate that I am able take time off from work to do it: The Freedom Forum instituted a new policy that grants each employee two First Amendment Freedom Days per year to participate in First Amendment activities of their choosing. I was able to take in-person poll worker training and to reserve a day to be a poll worker.

The process has been interesting learning how to make elections run smoothly. In a mix of online and in-person training of about five hours, Ive learned how voting locations are set up, how to check in voters, how to distribute the correct ballots and how to help voters ultimately cast their votes in elections from local to federal.

Ive been encouraged to see the number of people stepping up to volunteer, many of them young people. It is also why I respect groups working to recruit poll workers, like Poll Hero, which is recruiting thousands of college and high school students to be poll workers this election cycle a new type of civic engagement that gives me hope and empowers everyone to play a role in protecting the First Amendment freedom of petition. Its become apparent that poll workers will be the guardians that ensure voters can petition their government by casting a ballot this cycle. They will be on the front lines, ensuring that all who want to participate are able to do so, while reassuring the public that this election is being held fairly.

Am I nervous about this? 100%. Yes. Do I like the idea of being exposed to many people in the age of COVID-19? No.

But what I and many others know is that poll workers will be vital in ensuring that all who want to can cast their ballots, and in turn exercise their right to petition.

Also, being a poll worker is a reminder in these times that there are many ways for us to champion the First Amendment without being a journalist or leading a protest movement.

We all can apply the First Amendment by going to the polls, mailbox or drop box and voting and then doing what we can to support other people in this process. Vote, volunteer, use your speech to educate others. No matter the method, we can all be guardians of the First Amendment.

Excerpt from:

Poll workers: Guardians of the first amendment this election - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

Freedom of speech is no laughing matter except in the hands of comedian and author Judy Gold. She analyzes threats to the First Amendment of the Constitution from the perspective of a stand-up comic.

The book makes the case that PC police and cancel culturesometimes go too far in their quest to avoid offending anyone. Thats a real problem for stand-up comedians who are often funniest when they arent bound by the niceties of polite society.

Gold also devotes a good portion of her book to the contributions of Jewish talent in the history of comedy and why Jews make great comedians.

Gold is a two-time winner of the Daytime Emmy Awards for her work as a writer and producer on The Rosie ODonnell Show. She spoke with theJewish Lightrecently about her book, Yes, I Can Say That: When They Come for the Comedians, We Are All in Trouble. Her responses have been edited for space.

In a 25-year-old episode of the HBO Comedy Half-Hour, you did a set in which you talked about the importance of free speech to comedy. Is it fair to say this is a subject that youve had strong opinions on for quite a while?

I have always, even when I was a little girl. I was always like, wait, wait, why cant we talk about that? My mother was always like, Judith! Oh, no, we dont discuss that. Why? Why don't we discuss that? I think a lot of Jews are like that: Lets just keep a low profile.

When we were kids, didnt our parents try to protect us by talking in hushed tones about certain subjects?

Right. Theres always a lot of whispering or Yiddish sprinkled into the adult conversations when youre a Jewish kid. You know, you have no idea what theyre talking about. And then you hear your name and youd be like, Wait, what?

In the foreword to the book, you said you were asked to write about freedom of speech from a comedians perspective, which seems like a pretty good idea. It makes you wonder why somebody didnt think of that before.

When they asked me to do it, it was because I was on Vice News. They were doing a piece on college bookers who were telling comedians what they can and cannot say on stage. Young kids were telling these comedians who were booked that they cant say certain things. And so they asked me to be the opposing viewpoint, which I gladly said yes to. That went viral, and then I heard from HarperCollins, who said to me, Would you write this book? And I said,Absolutely.

One of the pitfalls of being a comedian is that an ill-timed comment can have a significant financial cost. For example, when Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about the tsunami in Japan he subsequently was fired by Aflac insurance, where he had a lucrative voiceover contract doing the ducks voice. You described the situation with him in some detail in the book.

Right, of course, if you work for a corporation, you sort of are selling your soul. If you want that money, then you may have to give something up. And, you know, theres another layer to the Gilbert Aflac thing. When he tweeted those jokes, no one knew how bad the tsunami was at that point. He had his followers on Twitter, and his fans were asking him, Arent you going to make some ridiculous jokes? And he did. And if youre a corporation and youre going to hire a comedian, then do your due diligence.

You got into a situation that you mentioned in the book in which a corporate client gave you a list of things to do and not to do, which you actually used in your set. The client was not amused, but the audience was. Exactly who did they think they were hiring?

Right. You dont get a plumber to come to your apartment and tell him, Oh, no, I turn the pipes to the right, and hell say,Get away from me! You want me to fix your toilet? Im going to fix your toilet. But dont tell me how to do my job. I dont tell you how to do your job.

If comedians get too concerned about whether a joke might offend an audience and they start to censor their own material, does that inherently curb free speech and curtail creativity?

When you try to silence us, thats the end of free speech. Thats the end. Its over. Think about all the sitcoms we watched as kids and the topics they tackled, and the reason it was so impactful was that we were so invested in those characters. Like All inthe Family and the episode of Maude where they decide to terminate a pregnancy.

Its kind of amazing, given how cautious the network executives are, that Norman Lear got as much content in as he did.

He threatened them multiple times. If theres a hierarchy deciding what America should watch on television, its so ridiculous. Why doesnt the individual decide? If you don't like the comedian, then then dont listen to them. But dont say they should never be able to do stand-up again. Its like you go to an art exhibit, and you love this artist and you see they have 15 paintings and three of them you dont like. Oh, I dont like that one. You say they should never paint again? Or if theres a song on the radio that you dont like, you can change the channel.

Sir Michael Palin was asked about free speech and comedy. He said comedy has to reflect the way life is, and that its especially important in times of crisis because people need laughter more than ever.

Right. Think about this past Saturday night [in early October], everyone I know couldnt wait for Saturday Night Live to come on. I was doing shows outdoors all summer in Provincetown, Mass., and people were dying to laugh, and it is such a part of our culture. Think about Bob Hope in the in the 1940s, going to visit the troops and bringing comedians along. And comedians still go to visit the troops. What other country has the military abroad, and they bring people to make them laugh? I mean, its so much a part of who we are.

Speaking of SNL, during comedian Bill Burrs opening monologue in the Oct. 10 show, he took aim at privileged white women and subsequently generated a mini-controversy on Twitter. Was Burr out of line with his jokes or are audiences becoming way too sensitive?

Bill Burr was not out of lineand, yes, audiences are becoming way too sensitive. Its as if their natural instinct is to laugh because its funny, and then they pivot because they realize that the joke isnt politically correct. Funny is funny.

A Jew can make a joke about Jews. Blacks can make jokes about Blacks. A white non-Jewish comedian probably is playing with fire making jokes about Blacks or Jews. Bill Burr is a white man, and he made jokes about Pride Month, Blacks and mostly, white women. Fair game?

One hundred percent fair game. As an LGBTQ person, I thought his joke about Pride Month was actually about Black History month being in February and I thought it was hilarious. And I loved how he called out hypocritical white women. Yes, Bill Burr is a white man, but are you aware that he is married to an African American woman and his children are mixed race? His brilliance as a comic comes from his ability to take us to an uncomfortable place and relieve the tension with a great punch line. He speaks the truth, and its an unfortunate state of affairs that people feel threatened by that. I laughed.

In the book, you talk a lot about the many Jewish comics throughout history. Can you elaborate on the close connection between Judaism and humor?

Well, we know that humor is in the Talmud. In Judaism, everything is a question or an argument, and thats what a joke is. A joke is looking at something from a completely different perspective. Your bar or bat mitzvah: Youre taking a piece of the Torah and being told,OK, here, find something new. Make it your own. Thats what we as comedians do. Also, being a persecuted race of people, we use humor as a weapon. Its gotten us out of a lot of trouble. We all we know that during the Holocaust, that they were entertaining each other in the camps and also in the late 30s, it was the Jewish comedians who were getting onstage in Germany and talking about what the hell was going on. And then Hitler had the Treachery Act, where you could not make a joke about him. That is how powerful comedy is.

Why do you think Jews make good comedians?

As my mother always said, If we werent laughing, wed be crying. Judaism is a thinking persons religion. Comedy is a thinking persons art.

Author:Judy Gold

Book:Yes, I Can Say That: When They Come for the Comedians, We Are All in Trouble

Schedule:7 p.m. Monday, Nov.2

Interviewed by: Jo Firestone, comedianand writer for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

See the original post:

Consider the source: Jews, comedy and the First Amendment - St. Louis Jewish Light

The question of who, if anyone, owns the Constitution is yet another fault line in our current national fragmentation. Politicians and cable news outlets routinely question the constitutionality of every posture, provocation and decision, even in situations where the provisions of the Constitution are irrelevant. While most Americans have never read the document, weve been conditioned to respond to it in ways that reflect our political and social biases. I cant help but notice that voices on the right have more tightly wrapped themselves inside the idea of the Constitution, though not necessarily its true meaning. They have appointed themselves arbiters of what is or is not constitutional, attempting to own the document in a way that leaves little room for the rest of us. Recently in Michigan, a ragtag army of 13 constitutional vigilantes planned to kidnap the governor for what they saw as violating their constitutional rights in mandating restrictions to help slow the spread of the coronavirus. They proved that no good deed goes unpunished.

Its important to note that the First Amendment only protects citizens from restrictions placed upon us by the government. Because private entities are allowed to control speech, the First Amendment is not carte blanche to say what you want, where you want. In the world of social media, companies like Facebook and Twitter have no legal obligation to provide a forum for free speech, although gauging by the amount of garbage regularly posted therein, I would argue that theyre going a good job of providing it. Just as a private baker in Lakewood, Colo. doesnt have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if it clashes with his religious views, a social media company can remove messages that contradict its corporate principles.

My own experience at the intersection of the First Amendment and social media occurred at the right-wing Breitbart News Networks website. The Breitbart community, an active collection of conservatives, alt-right mudslingers and conspiracy theorists, coalesces daily around a dynamic comment string that scrolls below each news article. Hundreds, if not thousands, of comments are logged on subjects that veer far and wide from the original topic. Breitbart users profess a level of patriotism and a commitment to the First Amendment that is admirable if only it were true. They, along with President Trump, routinely complain about other social media platforms, insisting that their right-wing voices are being silenced. Lets be clear. This is another conspiracy theory and, even if it were true, its the prerogative of any private company to censor unwanted content.

Im proof of that. Three times I set up a user profile at Breitbart with the intent of sharing my contrasting point of view with the community. And three times I was banned. My opinions were regularly attacked with an anger and hostility that was impressive but not unexpected when youre swimming upstream in a right-wing echo chamber. And to be honest, I did bait the audience, often encouraging users to post their best Holocaust denial. But I never used obscenities and I never advocated or threatened violence. I cant say the same for the people who responded to me.

I accepted the punishment each time, understanding that Breitbart is a private entity and can shape the culture of its web property as it sees fit. What I cant accept is the hypocrisy. To be suppressed by Breitbart, a community that consistently derides social media companies for denying them their First Amendment rights while simultaneously censoring my liberal point of view, is a double standard that only a conspiracy theorist would miss.

But dont worry, President Trump has a solution for my problem. His administration has recently petitioned the Department of Commerce to reinterpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects technology companies and their platforms from legal liability for the third-party content that people post. It also includes a good Samaritan clause that encourages technology companies to remove objectionable content and protects them from lawsuits for doing that. From comments on mommy blogs to one-star ratings on restaurant reviews sites, Section 230 and its protections have allowed the internet to boom and become the freewheeling hub of social interaction weve come to rely on.

Trumps petition, packaged in the guise of free speech, is to strike down the part of Section 230 that provides those important legal protections to technology companies when they flag, fact check or remove the bile and animus that he and his supporters spew into public discourse each week. In this, the right is conveniently ignoring what it professes to hate: the use of the power of government to coerce private companies, in this case by threat of litigation, to do something that runs counter to their principles. And that, you can argue, encroaches on First Amendment rights.

If Section 230 is reinterpreted, the result wont be kinder, gentler online conversations. Instead, well be chest deep in even more of the lies and vitriol that were already wading through. I wonder what the Breitbart community thinks about all this and Id post a comment to ask but, unfortunately, Im still banned.

Amos Klausner lives in San Geronimo and is a local school board trustee.

See the original post:

Say what you want about the First Amendment - Point Reyes Light

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerbergtold senators Wednesday that free speech is an equity that should be weighed against other considerations.

Sen.Marsha Blackburn(R-TN) said in introducing her question that Facebook is picking winners and losers and that the company is inserting itself into issue of free speech. Is the First Amendment a given right, or is that a competing equity? she asked, referencing Zuckerbergs earlier commentary.

I believe strongly in free expression, Zuckerberg replied. But I do think that, like all equities, it is balanced against other equities, like safety and privacy. Even people who believe in the strongest possible interpretation of the First Amendment still believe there should be some limits on speech when it could cause an imminent risk of physical harm.

Even the people who believe in the strongest possible interpretation of the First Amendment still believe there should be some limits on speech when it could cause risk of imminent physical harm. The kind of famous example thats used is that you cant shout fire in a crowded theater, Zuckerberg added. So I think that getting those equities right, and the balance right, is the challenge that we face.

Having agreed in principle that Facebook does involve itself in the process of free speech and making determinations with regard to the balance of that First Amendment freedom, Blackburns time expired and the discussion had to end.

Facebook has been the subject of criticism by conservatives who have questioned its censorship decisions, most recently for a warning label it appended to an Oct. 14 New York Poststory about Democratic presidential nomineeJoe Bidenand his son,Hunter Biden.

The Facebook chief appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday alongside Twitter CEOJack Dorseyand Google CEOSundar Pichaito testify on Section 230, a law protecting their companies from liability for content their users post. Lawmakers are considering whether to reform the law after controversy this year over censorship decisions made by social-media companies.

Watch above via the Senate Commerce Committee.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

More here:

Mark Zuckerberg Says Facebook Balances First Amendment Against Other Equities: There Should be Some Limits on Speech - Mediaite

Do you remember your first time? Your first time at a protest is something special. Holding handmade signs with passionate messages that let the world know whats on your mind and what you value is a beautiful, powerful feeling.

No matter your political, religious, or personal beliefs, your right to gather and vocalize your opinions at a protest or just about anywhere is possible thanks to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The third week of October is nationally recognized as Free Speech Week, celebrating all things freedom of speech and the press.

Sandy and Jessica Bohrer, two constitutional lawyers who also happen to be father and daughter, recently published their first book focusing on teaching grade school children the value of the First Amendment.

Your Voice Is Your Superpower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (and the First Amendment), released in September, teaches children about their most valuable weapon: their voice.

The childrens book numbers a colorful 34 pages, written in witty rhyme kids that will easily digest yet will still resonate with adults.

A native of New Jersey, Sandy has been living in Miami and fighting for freedom of the press for nearly four decades. One of the nation's top First Amendment attorneys, he also happens to be the only lawyer who has represented Miami New Timesever since our papers inception in 1987. (He has also represented the Miami Herald.)

Growing up in the Bohrer household, it wasnt uncommon for Jessica and her brother to see their father on the television news. Sandy was featured in print so often that Jessicas paternal grandfather would carry the newspaper clippings in his pocket. But there was rarely any shop talk in the home.

Much like her father, Jessica has dedicated her life to free speech, working as Forbes editorial counsel and volunteering with the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Jessica and Sandy Bohrer's children's book, Your Voice Is Your Superpower

Photo courtesy of Jessica Bohrer

I became a lawyer because I wanted to help people, says Jessica, admitting there may have been some subconscious influence. I certainly grew up with those values embedded in my moral compass, of protecting freedoms, and freedom of speech being the first of them.

The concept behind Your Voice Is Your Superpower evolved through various conversations between Sandy and his daughter. The current political climate ultimately helped to inspire the theme of the book.

We thought this was a really important time to start teaching young children about how important it is to use your voice and how important it is to protect the freedom to speak, to protest, to be able to express yourself without fear of harm, Jessica explains.

In this environment where the president of the United States is trying to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of the press, [we thought] maybe its time to start building it back up, Sandy adds, noting theimportance of teaching young children about the values associated with the First Amendment.

Children arent born hating anyone; they have to be taught to hate. And they can be taught to respect other people, too, Sandy says.

Jessica echoes her fathers sentiments. The attacks on journalists have increased exponentially, and I think what that tells us is that the value of free speech, the value of the free press, is under threat right now.The best way you can counteract those trends is to start with young people," she says. "We want to teach them to be accepting, and to take this value very seriously and stand firmly to defend it.

Before speaking with New Times on Wednesday afternoon, Jessica participated in a virtual book reading with a second-grade class.

The students, she says, excitedly recounted stories of accompanying their parents to protests.

These kids are experiencing all of these things in the world, and so its great to be able to give them a tool to understand whats happening and understand how they can be a part of their community and part of democracy, Jessica says.

Your Voice Is Your Superpower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (and the First Amendment), by Jessica and Sandy Bohrer. City Point Press. 2020. 34 pages. Paperback $6.99, board book $13.99.

Carolina del Busto is a freelance writer for Miami New Times. She nurtured her love of words at Boston College before moving back home to Miami and has been covering arts and culture in the Magic City since 2013.

Originally posted here:

First Amendment Childrens Book Teaches a New Generation About Freedom of Speech - New Times Broward-Palm Beach

AP Explains: The rule that made the modern internet

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) Twenty-six words tucked into a 1996 law overhauling telecommunications have allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giants they are today.

Those are the words President Donald Trump's administration has challenged directly via executive order, one that would strip those protections if online platforms engaged in editorial decisions. The CEOs of the three internet companies face questioning Wednesday by the Senate Commerce Committee about Republican claims of anti-conservative bias.

Beyond questioning the CEOs, senators are expected to examine proposals to revise long-held legal protections for online speech, an immunity that critics in both parties say enables the companies to abdicate their responsibility to impartially moderate content.

Under the U.S. law, internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act itself part of a broader telecom law provides a legal safe harbor for internet companies.

But Trump and other politicians, including Democrats, though for different reasons than Republicans argue that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have abused that protection and should lose their immunity or at least have to earn it by satisfying requirements set by the government.

Section 230 probably cant be easily dismantled. But if it was, the internet as we know it might cease to exist.

QUESTION: Just what is Section 230?

ANSWER: If a news site falsely calls you a swindler, you can sue the publisher for libel. But if someone posts that on Facebook, you can't sue the company just the person who posted it.

That's thanks to Section 230, which states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

That legal phrase shields companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted whether their complaint is legitimate or not.

The legal interpretation of section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services' own standards, so long as they are acting in good faith."

QUESTION: Where did Section 230 come from?

The measure's history dates back to the 1950s, when bookstore owners were being held liable for selling books containing obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment. One case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which held that it created a chilling effect to hold someone liable for someone elses content.

That meant plaintiffs had to prove that bookstore owners knew they were selling obscene books, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet," a book about Section 230.

Fast-forward a few decades to when the commercial internet was taking off with services like CompuServe and Prodigy. Both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate its, while Prodigy, seeking a family-friendly image, did.

CompuServe was sued over that, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that "they exercised editorial control so you're more like a newspaper than a newsstand, Kosseff said.

That didn't sit well with politicians, who worried that outcome would discourage newly forming internet companies from moderating at all. And Section 230 was born.

Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any claims for moderating content, Kosseff said.

QUESTION: What happens if Section 230 is limited or goes away?

ANSWER: I dont think any of the social media companies would exist in their current forms without Section 230, Kosseff said. They have based their business models on being large platforms for user content.

There are two possible outcomes. Platforms might get more cautious, as Craigslist did following the 2018 passage of a sex-trafficking law that carved out an exception to Section 230 for material that promotes or facilitates prostitution. Craigslist quickly removed its personals section altogether, which wasn't intended to facilitate sex work. But the company didnt want to take any chances.

This outcome could actually hurt none other than the president himself, who routinely attacks private figures, entertains conspiracy theories and accuses others of crimes.

If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trumps lies, defamation, and threats," said Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another possibility: Facebook, Twitter and other platforms could abandon moderation altogether and let the lower common denominator prevail.

Such unmonitored services could easily end up dominated by trolls, like 8chan, which is infamous for graphic and extremist content, said Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman. Undoing Section 230 would be an an existential threat to the internet, he said.

But Goldman doesnt see the White House order as that kind of threat to the internet, saying its political theater that will appeal to Trump supporters. The president cant override Congress, he said.

__

AP Technology Writer Tali Arbel contributed to this story from New York.

More:

Behind the fight over the rule that made the modern internet - Huron Daily Tribune