Daily Archives: August 20, 2021

The Governments Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will limit, rather than protect, academic freedom, argue Liz Fekete and Liam Shrivastava

The Government is attempting to take the moral high ground over free speech on campus. But the real purpose of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, currently at the committee stage in the House of Commons, is to limit academic freedom and weed out progressive views on campus particularly, though not exclusively, related to racial justice and the teaching of Britains imperial history.

Sir John Hayes, chair of the Common Sense Group of Conservative MPs, has even compared the fight to ban the wicked ways of the self-appointed thought police and their bigoted views to a contemporary Battle for Britain.

His choice of the word bigoted is pretty rich, given his support for capital punishment and a ban on abortion, and the fact that the bill, it has been argued, would provide legal protection for hate speech.

The bill builds on the Conservatives 2019 manifesto pledge to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities. As such, it signals the role the Government expects higher education to play in cementing its cultural revolution from the right one that revolves around greater acceptance for nationalist and nativist ideas, while asserting a virtue in colour-blindness.

Through the proposed legislation, institutional barriers to the expression of racist and bigoted views on campus will, in effect, be removed alongside the introduction of a new statutory tort for breach of the duty to actively promote freedom of speech. Under the bill, powers are to be granted to the university regulator, the Office for Students, to impose sanctions on universities and student unions, including fines in case of breaches.

Two reports by the influential right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, calling for viewpoint diversity in universities, have provided the justification for the bill and the Governments wider war on woke.

The methodology used for these reports has been criticised for bias within question-framing and for drawing simplistic conclusions designed to generate clickbait headlines. The reports posit a number of claims, including that Brexit-supporting students are victimised and that right-wing lecturers have fallen foul of a structural discrimination that blights their career paths.

Eric Kaufmann, a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, co-authored its report on Academic Freedom in the UK: Protecting Viewpoint Diversity. In a recent article for the American conservative magazine National Review, he attacked the progressive authoritarianism associated with woke culture, called on Conservatives to use the law to limit the institutional autonomy of elite institutions such as universities, and set out a legislative framework for equalities where political diversity and viewpoint neutrality is afforded the same legal protection as race, gender and other forms of diversity.

Kaufmann also called on all freedom-minded allies on the left to join with those on the right in a struggle to prevent a woke takeover and progressive conformity.

But, when it comes to free speech, the Government is cryingcrocodile tears. Because, unless academic freedom comes dressed-up in in a patriotic, socially-conservative wrapper, it is quitehappy for it to be eroded through censorship, bans and legal threats. There are a number of recent examples.

The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenochs suggested that teachers who use critical race theory, or conceptssuch as white privilege, could face action for breaking the law.

The Universities Minister Michelle Donelan said that the decolonisation of British history which shecompared to Soviet-style censorship has no place in universities.

The Education Secretary Gavin Williamson instructed school leaders on framing discussions around Israel-Palestine, in a letter which critics claim fails to guarantee the right to free speech and association in relation to Palestine.

Last years Department for Educations guidelines warned schools against using resources from organisations that expressed views harmful to British society or a desire to end capitalism. The guidelines were only placed under review following the threat of legal action. As lawyers for the Coalition of Anti-Racist Educators and the Black Educators Alliance argued in a pre-action letter, banning resources from certain political groups is a clear statement of the Secretary of States political preferences and limits free speech. Teachers could be prevented from using material from campaign groups including Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, thereby limiting anti-racist or environmental teaching on crucial social matters.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and support quality, investigative reporting.

The legal status of another Government challenge to university research has yet to be clarified. It has indicated support for a recommendation by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities to remove funding from university research departments that continue to use the research terms such as BAME or BME (referring to black, Asian and ethnic minority people) in data collection. This attempt to control the funding of university research, in line with a particular ideological view of how race should be conceptualised, is hardly in line with academic freedom.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill intends to shift the focus from protected characteristics in law such as age or race to protecting beliefs, which will essentially reverse hard-won civil rights for minority groups. In doing so, the Government will arguably create a harmful culture on campus for racial and sexual minorities.

The phrase crying crocodile tears derives from an ancient belief that crocodiles shed tears while consuming their prey. There can be no doubt that, in promoting this bill, it is the civil rights of racial and other minorities and of all progressive groups that are under threat of being devoured.

Liz Fekete is director of the Institute of Race Relations and author of Europes Fault Lines: Racism and the Rise of the Right, published by Verso.Liam Shrivastava is communications officer at the Institute of Race Relations

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

Read this article:
The Government is Crying Crocodile Tears Over Free Speech On Campuses Byline Times - Byline Times

I cover politics for a living, but Ive also been a fan of stand-up comedy for most of my life. Over the last five years or so, a lot of political comedy has grown stale. I keep asking myself, why is that?

Im tempted to say its because the Trump era was too easy for comics. And yet thats too simple and probably just wrong. Besides, there are plenty of great comics right now. My main objection (and to state the obvious, Im just a fan) is that much of it is predictably partisan. Dont get me wrong, comedians can be political and funny, but the partisan comics have always bored me to death. For me, the best comedy is reflective and honest; it spares no one and nothing.

I recently spoke to Bill Maher, an acclaimed stand-up comedian and the longtime host of HBOs Real Time with Bill Maher, for an episode of Vox Conversations. Mahers a political comic, and clearly a liberal, but Ive always enjoyed his work because Ive never really considered him a partisan, even though conservatives are the butt of most of his jokes. For all of his anti-Republican bits, you also get jabs at the left, like his recent segments on progressophobia and cultural appropriation.

Depending on the day, Twitter progressives are as likely to be pissed off at Maher as MAGA conservatives. And I suspect that has a lot to do with the enduring success of his HBO show, which premiered back in 2003.

We discuss how a guy who donated a million dollars to Obamas presidential campaign, whos been way out front on issues like animal rights and climate change, became a lightning rod. We also talk about the risks of political comedy and why ideology is always a threat to humor.

Listen to our conversation below or on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

See the article here:
Bill Maher on free speech, comedy, and his haters - Vox.com

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The government wants you to believe its targeting hate speech, when in reality its targeting free speech

Author of the article:

Free speech ensures that Canadians have the right to tell governments when theyre wrong. While this may be unpleasant for governments, it is absolutely vital in a democratic society.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Rather than strengthening Canadians rights, the Trudeau government wants to filter free speech through the lens of a bureaucratic superstructure. There can be no doubt that there are bad things on the internet. Child pornography, hate speech, and other such crimes are detestable. But these crimes are already labelled as such through the criminal code with lengthy prison sentences for those who are convicted.

If the federal government wants to review these laws, thats a discussion worth having. However, it is an entirely separate issue.

The government wants you to believe its targeting hate speech, when in reality its targeting free speech. Experts say that the Trudeau governments new proposed online harms law would fundamentally weaken free speech in Canada and would require a costly bureaucratic superstructure to enforce all of the governments new rules.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As University of Ottawa Law Professor Michael Geistput it, the government seems to treat freedom of speech as a danger to be constrained rather than a right to be defended. The planned legislation wouldcreatefour new government bodies, which would become the foundation of a costly new bureaucratic superstructure.

The new bodies include a Digital Safety Commission, led by a commissioner appointed by the federal cabinet, and an advisory board composed of seven members chosen by the Minister of Heritage. The commissioner and advisory board would be taskedwith identifying content that should not be kept online and would refer that content to a new tribunal.

Does anyone really believe a commissioner appointed by cabinet and an advisory board appointed by the minister of heritage would be completely impartial in identifying what should be removed online?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Of course not.

If these new bodies were created today, all eight bureaucrats would be appointed by the Trudeau cabinet. Does that sound fair, balanced, and neutral? Some of the powers that would be handed to the new tribunal are reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwells 1984. The tribunal, acting on the recommendations of the commissioner, could order online communication services like Facebook and Twitter to take down any content the government deems harmful.

These platforms would have to address any complaints within 24 hours. Failing to remove content could lead to anindictable offenseand fines of up to$25 million. These undemocratic proposals seem eerily similar to those supported by authoritarian regimes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Canadians shouldnt have to rely on a hope and a prayer that bureaucrats appointed by a partisan government will safeguard our right to criticize that very same government. To put the cherry on top of this disastrous cake, the Trudeau governments new bureaucratic superstructure would cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Online communications services would faceregulatory chargesto do business in Canada, which no doubt will be passed onto consumers.

The governments new proposals amount to a dangerous shift toward state censorship. Canadians, not bureaucrats, should be able to determine exactly how and why they want to criticize the government online. With an election just weeks away, now is the perfect time to have a vigorous national debate about government censorship.

Jay Goldberg is the Interim Ontario Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In-depth reporting on the innovation economy from The Logic, brought to you in partnership with the Financial Post.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Financial Post Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See more here:
Opinion: Free speech cant be filtered through a bureaucratic superstructure - Financial Post

In 2018 the Camp Fire, the largest and deadliest wildfire in California history, leveled the entire town of Paradise, where nearly 19,000 buildings, mostly homes, were destroyed. The Poor People's Campaign and the California Homeless Union together supported the newly homeless residents. 3 years later, in the midst of yet another devastating wildfire season, what has happened in Paradise and the surrounding communities? Our guests are Anthony Prince, General Counsel for the California Homeless Union, and Greg Shafer, originally from Paradise, who works as a mental health provider and advocates for those made homeless by the fire.

FSTVs Just Solutions features inspiring conversations with activists, community leaders, and others working to make our world a better place. We discuss the many challenges we are facing, while exploring the solutions emerging from the grassroots.

Missed an episode? Check out Just Solutions 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.

View post:
From the Ashes - California Wildfires - Free Speech TV

In 2018 the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California history, leveled the entire town of Paradise, where nearly 19,000 buildings, mostly homes, were destroyed. The Poor People's Campaign and the California Homeless Union together supported the newly homeless residents. 3 years later, in the midst of yet another devastating wildfire season, what has happened in Paradise and the surrounding communities? Our guests are Anthony Prince, General Counsel for the California Homeless Union, and Greg Shafer, originally from Paradise, who works as a mental health provider and advocates for those made homeless by the fire. FSTVs Just Solutions features inspiring conversations with activists, community leaders, and others working to make our world a better place. We discuss the many challenges we are facing, while exploring the solutions emerging from the grassroots. Missed an episode? Check out Just Solutions 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. ---

From These Ashes Homelessness Just Solutions Paradise wildfires

Link:
Homelessness In The Wake Of Wildfires - Free Speech TV

Constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis Twitter account was restricted this week for hate speech.

Ellis said the restriction came after a tweet that quoted a White House correspondent who said 30,000 Afghan supposed refugees, unvetted, were going to be coming into the United States because of Bidens orders.

So Biden is literally bringing in terrorists, Ellis tweeted. #IMPEACHBIDENNOW.

Wow, such hate from Ellis. Just reading that tweet made me want to find a safe space and talk to someone about how it made me feel (insert eye roll).

Somehow, @jack (Jack Dorsey, Chief Tweet King) thinks that Ellis is promoting hate. However, on Jacks platform, this morning, are Afghan citizens getting beaten in the streets by the not so hateful Taliban, and that is all good Im assuming since Twitter hasnt restricted those videos.

Watch for yourself. Is this not hate or violence?

In other news: the Spokesman of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Zabihullah Mujahids Twitter account is up and running with updates on the terror unfolding on the Afghan people. Yes, we can get live, unfiltered, news directly from the Taliban on Twitter.

Id like to know what the hell has happened to the #metoo crowd, and why the silence? My only guess is confusion as those on the far left are trying to figure out what they stand for.

Maybe nothing at all in reality. Yeah, maybe thats it, like a shiny object one day and on to the next shiny object the next.

Maybe it was all bullsh*t. Womens right? LGBTQ+ rights?

Jack, You stand for those rights? Dont you? Or not?

Jack, why dont you fly your wealthy tail over to Afghanistan, or whats left of it, and ask the new leader his stance on womens rights and the rights of LGBTQ+. You see, in this country, America, those rights exist already, but some want to act as they dont.

A woman was killed by the Taliban on the street of Talogan, Takhar province (Afghanistan), for going out in colorful clothes and without a burqa.

This occurred on the same day that a Taliban spokesperson mentioned that it was would respect womens rights under Islamic doctrine.

As reported byFox Newsthe woman refused to cover her hair and face with the traditional burqa, which was requested on the street by the Taliban.

In the images released, the womans body is observed on the ground and surrounded by her relatives for the actions of the taliban.

Yeah, maybe it was all bullsh*t. Ask yourself, regardless of where you stand politically, what do you stand for?

Jack, what do you stand for? Maybe spend some time reflecting on what this great country of ours has allowed you to become, and stop stifling the conversation of those with who you disagree, but rather listen to a different point of view. We can all agree to disagree.

But to smother freedom of speech from Americans, and at the same time allow terrorists to have a voice on your platform, that speaks volumes of your character.

Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

Related

The rest is here:
Free Speech Is Dead: American Conservatives Silenced Online As Taliban Broadcast Beatings - The Free Press

The Rock was delivered to homes in eight parishes by Jersey Post earlier this week (31511547)

The Rock, which was delivered to homes in eight parishes by Jersey Post earlier this week, contained articles questioning the legitimacy of vaccinations, the need for restrictions and included an article entitled the Nazification of the NHS.

Jersey Post halted delivery following complaints and criticism on social media, and said they would be carrying out an internal investigation. Deputy Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham said that it was concerning to hear that a publication with potential misinformation is in circulation.

However, in a statement, the head of media and public relations for The Rock, Claire Stone, said that it was of great concern that circulation had been unilaterally stopped by the postal company.

She said: Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental freedoms that all of us enjoy, and as such, they have been enshrined in law.

Why is the government launching a probe, and on what grounds is it doing so? The real question here is how can such enshrined freedoms be taken away so lightly?

The Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004 outlines material that should not be posted which includes anything that may harm persons or contains anything indecent, obscene or grossly offensive.

Ms Stone added: If the material contained in The Rock falls within these categories, it is for the people asserting this to prove it under the law, not for a small number of complaints to trigger the banning of delivery of The Rock.

The backers of The Rock take their freedom of expression very seriously, and it does seem very strange that across the world the press have taken a one-sided approach to the issue of Covid-19.

She added that the newspaper had tried to give an alternative voice to the Covid-19 debate and accused Jersey Post of attempting to silence any voice other than those supporting the flagrant breaches of our human rights and civil liberties.

Earlier this week reality television star Hedi Green who appeared in The Real Housewives of Jersey said she was one of more than 100 people who were involved in The Rocks publication.

The JEP understands that those behind the newspaper are planning to give out more copies in St Helier this week.

Go here to see the original:
Stopping publication of The Rock 'breaches free speech' - Jersey Evening Post

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi:The Bombay High Court Saturday partially stayed the controversial Information Technology Rules 2021 noting that certain provisions prima facie went beyond the scope of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The order came on two sets of pleas, filed by legal news portal The Leafletand Mumbai-based journalist Nikhil Wagle, which challenged the newly notified IT Rules for being ultra vires of Information Technology Act, 2000 the act these rules were made under and for being violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Free Speech) of the Constitution.

The 2021 rules were notified on 25 February and supersede the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.

Representing The Leaflet, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata argued before the court that the rules were ex-facie draconian, arbitrary and patently ultra vires the provisions of the IT Act and the provisions of Articles 14 and 19.

To this end, the Bombay HC in an interim order stayed Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(3) of the IT Rules.

ThePrint explains the reason behind the stay.

Also read: The meaning of govts new IT rules for OTT, digital media & the serious concerns they raise

Clauses (1) and (3) of Rule 9 are related to the new regulatory regime created by the IT Rules, a large part of which is prescribed in the Code of Ethics in the Appendix to the Rules.

The code states that norms made under the Press Council Act, which determines the standards in print media, and the Cable TV Act, which provides a framework for TV programmes, shall now apply to online publishers as well.

This code applies to two classes of entities publishers of news and current affairs and publishers of online curated content such as OTT (over-the-top) platforms.

Rule 9(1) states that these publishers shall observe and adhere to the Code of Ethics laid down in the Rules.

Meanwhile, Rule 9(3) creates a three-tier regulatory structure that will ensure that the code is adhered to.

This structure consists of three levels self-regulation by the publishers, a self-regulatory body of the publishers, and an oversight mechanism of the central government.

The Bombay High Court held that the IT Rules cannot impose an obligation on publishers of online news and online curated platforms to follow provisions that were previously advisory in nature such as the Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India under the Press Council Act (PCA).

The HC cited the norms under the Press Council Act and said that the sanction behind them is moral, not statutory.

Furthermore, it observed that the Programme Code under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act is mainly intended to provide a framework for the regulation of programmes on television and it would not be proper to subject online publishers to the loosely worded restrictions under the code.

However, the 2021 rules raise the status of both these subordinate legislations to mandatory compliance for online publishers.

The court also said that Section 87 of the IT Act does not allow the central government to frame rules such as Rule 9. This means that the Executive cannot make advisory norms under another legislation mandatory, for a different purpose through a subordinate legislation.

The court, therefore, held the two clauses of Rule 9 to be ultra vires of the IT Act because the authority exercised through it was beyond the power conferred by law.

Also read: Around 1,460 news sites, 40 OTTs submit company details to Modi govt under new IT rules

The HC said that subjecting online publishers to action under the three-tier statutory regime, enshrined in Rule 9, would have a chilling effect on free speech.

People would be starved of the liberty of thought and feel suffocated to exercise their right of freedom of speech and expression, said the HC.

On the importance of holding public figures accountable through criticism, the court said, For proper administration of the State, it is healthy to invite criticism of all those who are in public service for the nation to have a structured growth but with the 2021 Rules in place, one would have to think twice before criticizing.

In its opinion, it would become quite possible for a writer, editor or publisher to face the risk of punishment if the inter-departmental committee turns out to be not in favour of criticism of a particular public figure.

They can be hauled up for anything if such a committee so wishes, the court said.

Tushar Kohli is an intern with ThePrint

(Edited by Rachel John)

Also read:What was the necessity to bring in new IT Rules? Bombay HC asks Centre

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

More:
Chilling effect on free speech Why Bombay HC stayed certain provisions of new IT rules - ThePrint

The American appetite for social media censorship is apparently increasing: 48 percent of survey respondents now want the government to restrict misinformation, compared with just 39 percent in 2018.

That's according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, which asked respondents what should be done about "false information online." The percentage of people who thought the social media companies themselves should curb misinformation has barely changed over the last few years (59 percent today versus 56 percent three years ago), but support for governmentaction jumped 9points.

That figure48 percentis significant. It means, that just about half of all people want the government to violate the First Amendment, which protects the free speech rights of private actors, including tech companies. Free speech can be messy, but the authors of the Bill of Rights believed that the federal government should not have the right to decide what ideas the people are allowed to express. After all, the government might accidentally criminalize true information rather than false information, or nefariously censor criticism of its own actions.

Indeed, this is precisely what has occurred over the course of the pandemic. Federal health bureaucrats and their allies in the White House have repeatedly urged tech platforms to take action against so-called misinformation relating to COVID-19. But over and over again, it has subsequently been the case that the misinformation in question was not quite so clear-cut. For instance, after weeks and weeks of the government's preferred health experts shrieking that the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origins was unthinkable and no one should be allowed to even discuss it, the idea gained enough mainstream traction that social media sites had to revise their policies of censoring the topic.

The government's own health guidance has varied wildly from moment to moment. At the beginning of the pandemic, top White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci discouraged the use of masks among the general population. Then, for months, masks became an urgent necessity in any and all circumstances. Eventually, health officials relented and said that masks were only necessary indoors. After the vaccine rollout began, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said that vaccinated individuals didn't need masks at all. But the CDC's current position is that in many circumstances, masks should be worn regardless of vaccination status.

The constantly shifting expert consensus, as well as the government's own history of issuing confusing and contradictory statements, should make people morereticent to entrust a single entity with the task of determining truth from falsehood. So it's a bit concerning that the American public has grown even hungrier for a central information czar since Pew last conducted this survey.

Note that the increasing appetite for censorship is mostly a reflection of increasing openness toward government action on the part of Democrats. While Republicans have grown even less willing to let either governments or the tech companies themselves restrict misinformation, Democrats have moved dramatically away from a robust defense of the First Amendment.

Pew also notes that the demographic differences pertaining to this question have largely disappeared.

"Three years ago, older Americans and those with less education were more likely than younger and more educated adults, respectively, to say the U.S. government should take steps to restrict false information online, even if means limiting some freedoms," write the survey's authors. "Now, Americans across nearly all age groups are fairly evenly divided between the two views. Similar changes have occurred when it comes to Americans' educational background."

View post:
48% of Americans Want the Government To Restrict Misinformation on Social Media - Reason