Daily Archives: October 3, 2021

Federalism is the answer, after all – part 49 – Guardian

Posted: October 3, 2021 at 1:55 am

Clinching Nigerias presidency is the ultimate prize in politics. Some have enthused in moments of discernment that the Nigerian presidency is the most powerful in the world. The executive always emasculates other organs of government, namely, the legislature and the judiciary, which ought to be subject of mutual horizontal accountability. The exclusive legislative list provides for about 68 legislative items for the central government complemented with the doctrine of covering the field.It is this power element at the centre that has led to hegemonic control of the country by a section of the population in the country that has come to perceive such lopsidedness as a right of sorts.

While the country has been badly governed by the current administration such that it has been unable to provide adequate security for lives and property of the citizenry, the commonplace politicians and other governing elite are already justly for the presidency when the incumbent is yet to complete its second term in office. It has accentuated the well-known binary in Nigerias politics, north versus the south.

In the Lagos meeting of the Southern Governors Forum held in July, the governors let it be known that the South must produce the next president of Nigeria. While reaffirming the unity of the country on the basis ofequity, fairness, justice, progress and peaceful co-existence amongst the people, it stressed its commitment to the politics of equity, fairness and unanimously agrees that the presidency of Nigeria be rotated between Southern and Northern Nigeria and further affirmed that the next president of Nigeria should emerge from the Southern Region.This position expectedly elicited responses from the northern elite, who stated that North would not succumb to threats or blackmail. According to the spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum (NEF), Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, the Southern governors position was, an expression of sentiment that could be best discussed within a political processWe are running a democratic government and decisions over where the next president comes from are basically decisions that will be made by voters exercising their rights to choose which candidate best serves their interest.The same spokesman was to abandon constructive response to hubris when he noted at the maiden Maitama Sule Lecture Series held at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria that the North would continue to lead Nigeria head or tail. In his words, We will lead Nigeria the way we have led Nigeria before whether we are President or Vice President, we will lead Nigeria. We have the majority of the votes and democracy says vote whom you wantWhy should we accept a second class position when we know we can buy a form and contest for first class and we will win?

Obviously, Nigeria has had a checkered history.It has managed to pull itself from the precipice each time it was thrown headlong. The act was brinkmanship dictated by reason and rationality. At the bottom of it all is the refusal to respect the diversity of the country and the federal scaffolding, which underpinned the state by those who held the reins of power at different times of its history. Today, the country is divided as never before with the mainstreaming of ethnic bigotry and nepotism at the highest level of governance. Doubtless, this is not a time to display arrogance of power. The times call for humility, consociational measures of inclusivity, and distributive justice, which inheres in the application of merit as well as brinksmanship.

While destination 2023 is not longer quite a distance, the time is still auspicious enough to restructure the country and restore its federal essentials. To paper over the mounting contradictions so glaring in the polity, meant postponing the doomsday.When that eventuality dawns no one can predict the scope of its consequences. Rotimi Suberu and Adigun Agbaje once noted the existence of a broad consensus in the country in favour of a reformed, revitalised and truly decentralised and democratised federal system. The consensus still abides, and let us not fritter it away. It is time to return the country to path of genuine federalism, which is the answer to the current darkness in the land.

Continued here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - part 49 - Guardian

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Federalism is the answer, after all – part 49 – Guardian

The Smart Cities Mission is an assault on cooperative federalism – The News Minute

Posted: at 1:55 am

What is smart about a city whose infrastructure works the residents and even elected representatives have no say in, ask people.

Twenty-six year-old Milana, a resident of Tumakuru city, 70 km away from capital Bengaluru in Karnataka, was in for a rude shock one August afternoon when she found the road leading to her door was flooded with sewage. When she enquired about the same with her neighbours, she found it was the result of the civic works carried out by the government-owned Tumakuru Smart City Limited company. This wasn't the first time though; the road has been dug up by TSCL at least six times in the past four months each time damaging the water pipe, underground drainage pipes, gas connection, and electric wires.

While the work has been finished by the company on paper, a dent in the road right in front of Milanas house has meant that she cannot open her house gate fully till date. Milana is not alone, there are many in Tumakuru city who are unhappy and tired with the incoherent nature of Smart City works.

Mahesh T is the elected councillor of Ward no 17 of Tumakuru city from BJP, where MIlana resides. Residents like Milana, in hopes of grievance redressal, knocked on Maheshs doors to seek accountability. But due to the nature of Smart Cities Mission (SCM) policy, even elected corporators have no knowledge of work being done in their own wards. Flooded with complaints from residents, Mahesh says he has tried to discuss matters with officials but with no success. Speaking to TNM, Mahesh says, They refuse to discuss anything with us about what work they are doing or when they will finish it. Even if we make a suggestion, they ignore it completely. The works are going on unscientifically. If we try to raise an issue, they say that the corporator is hindering the work. They finish this work worth crores and then leave us to maintain it for the next five years.

Some of these projects take months or even years, Mahesh says, When we question the TSCL staff, they make irresponsible comments saying that it is natural for any infrastructure project to take a long time. People of Tumakuru will know the problems that they face and what is needed to be done, but all these projects get approval from Delhi. Even If we ask for changes, they dont pay any heed, saying that it is already approved."

The experience in Bengaluru, another Smart City, is no different. Meenakshi S, a lifelong resident of Rhenius Street in Richmond Town at the heart of the central business district, has never seen water enter her home until this July. We have been living in this house for more than 60 years now and since the start of the Smart City project works near our house, since July, my house has been flooded more than three times. Worse, they inadvertently broke the Cauvery water connection, she says. Rhenius Street is being redone following the TenderSURE model, like in all major neighbouring CBD roads.

Meenakshi explains that every time she calls the officials, she has to deal with Smart City, BBMP and BWSSB officials shifting the blame to each other. But before they started work, everything was fine. Im not the only one who has suffered. Some of the residents are very old and their family members are all living outside Bengaluru, she adds.

Like Mahesh, Gangambike Mallikarjun of Congress, who was the 52nd Mayor of Bengaluru, says that often, corporators are not informed about Smart City works in their wards even in Bengaluru. She says, When the public gets involved in projects, we suggest improvements or modifications based on our experiences, as we know our situations better. For example if a footpath is being constructed and if there is adequate space, we might want trees to be planted. But in the current Smart City projects, there is no such scope.

All developmental works are for people, and their opinion about what has to be done should be sought. At least in Bengaluru, we have ward committees. When people get together and decide what they want for their area, it also gives the residents the feeling that their opinion is valued, she adds.

Tikender Panwar, former Deputy Mayor of Shimla and a member of the CPI feels the Smart Cities Mission is an extension of the urban renewal missions of the recent years that are more targeted toward monetisation of land, and most of the projects are redevelopment works and very little greenfield projects. A very small area of a city is getting these funds where there are huge inequalities existing in our cities. These SCM funds can be insignificant for a big city like Bengaluru but for a small city, it can make a lot of difference. But the SCM is bypassing the city council and not a single elected representative is heading these decision making bodies, he says.

Incidentally, the Indian Bureau of Standards, a government entity which was working to define what makes a city smart in India, was halted in its tracks for unknown reasons by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

Aravind Unni, urban poverty thematic lead working at Indo-Global Social Service Society, notes that the concept of smart cities started originating in the 1980s and 1990s backed by emerging tech companies like IBM, Cisco and others who floated the idea of using data to manage cities of the US West Coast better and that idea spread. It was only in 2011 that the inaugural Smart City Expo World Congress was held in Barcelona, which has now become an annual event charting smart cities development and popularizing the term, and concept beyond the developed nations, he says. The BJP in its 2014 poll manifesto had mentioned Smart Cities where it said, Our cities should no longer remain a reflection of poverty and bottlenecks. Rather they should become symbols of efficiency, speed and scale. It was in this context that Prime Minister Modi in June 2015 made a call to build 100 smart cities essentially promising better urban development and cities that match the cities of the global North.

Cities across the country had to compete with one another based on preliminary ideas. Once selected as a Smart City, the company is given Rs 500 crore over five years by the Union government as grant, and the same amount has to be contributed by the state government or the local municipal body.

Arvind notes that however vague it sounded, a smart city was defined as one having provision of basic infrastructure to give a decent quality of life to its citizens, a clean and sustainable environment, and application of smart solutions, keeping the citizens at the centre.

But this concept fit for the global North did not account for the reality of governance and institutions of Indian cities which do not have the ability to execute projects at breakneck speeds and are struggling to handle the existing city maintenance issues, he observes. According to an Indian Express analysis, till date in more than six years, less than 50% of 5,196 sanctioned projects have seen completion.

In contrast, Arvind observes in reality, there is nothing unique about the interventions and projects that are being executed by Smart Cities. He goes to the extent of saying that Smart City projects at best may be a wasteful expenditure or at worst projects that are instead worsening the existing situation, citing incidents of urban flooding of smart cities.

They are conventional urban projects that should have been executed by the city and state governments themselves, as opposed to the vague guidelines of the Special Purpose Vehicle-led implementation that will fade away as the scheme is rolled back, he adds.

TMSL or Bangalore Smart City Limited have been set up in line with the Smart Cities Mission. As per policy, the company is owned equally (50:50) by the state government and the citys municipal corporation. Once selected as a Smart City, the Union government hardly has a role in projects, according to a former MD of a Smart City in Karnataka. The board of the Smart City, composed of high ranking bureaucrats including the top IAS officer leading the city council, chooses what projects are to be taken following broad based guidelines of the Union government.

Bengaluru-based advocate Ajesh Kumar Shankar says the concept of Smart Cities itself is not only stupid but unconstitutional. He is one of the many arguing against the formation of a Smart City like company for Bengalurus Solid Waste Management, jointly owned by the Bengaluru civic body and the state government, at the Karnataka High Court.

In that case, the High Court has prima facie observed that the BBMP cannot outsource its statutory functions. By the 74th Amendment of the Constitution, we ought to have more power in the hands of the local people for their local problems through the ward committees and area sabhas or panchayats in rural areas. So this means, we elect corporators and we are in a participative democratic process, he says.

But through the Smart City project, the entire structure is being corporatised with no scope for public participation or accountability over public spending. So this creates an odd situation of duplication where the company is carrying out the work which already falls under the ambit of city corporations, but in a legislative vacuum, he adds.

Srinivas Alavilli, another advocate for decentralisation in governance, says that the problems with Smart Cities are multifold. First, being that the planning process itself is done at a parallel level of an elected city council of corporators. Second is that no one will lose an election if Smart City works are done shoddily. Our local corporator knows that if she turns a deaf ear to the residents complaints, she will have a hard time getting elected next time. But with Smart Cities, there is no such political accountability. Can we hold the Prime Minister or even Chief Minister responsible for bad Smart City works? The experience is the same with parastatal agencies like BESCOM, where there is no political price to pay for not delivering, he says, adding, Instead of spending public money on such schemes, focus on systematic reforms such as strengthening state finance commissions that will ensure financial devolution based on a formula to all cities instead of throwing some grants as special gifts. Trust the people of the city to wisely use the funds for what they deem important for them.

See the article here:

The Smart Cities Mission is an assault on cooperative federalism - The News Minute

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on The Smart Cities Mission is an assault on cooperative federalism – The News Minute

I dont believe in 2023 elections -Afenifere leader Adebanjo – Punch Newspapers

Posted: at 1:55 am

Leader of Pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, Pa Ayo Adebanjo, says he does not believe in the forthcoming 2023 general elections because of the worsening security situations in the country.

He stated this on Friday while featuring on PUNCH Online Interview Programme on the occasion of Nigerias 61st Independence Anniversary.

When asked what kind of characteristics the next Nigerian President should possess, Adebanjo said, I dont believe in 2023, so dont waste your time. I dont believe under the present insecurity situation in the country, killings here, kidnappings there, raping there, we can have an election.

Scores of police stations and offices of the Independent National Electoral Commission have been burnt in the last couple of months by rampaging hoodlums who attack government structures, especially in Southern Nigeria, where the agitation for secession has been the loudest of recent.

The Afenifere leader also lamented that some All Progressives Congress leaders including Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo; Bola Tinubu, Bisi Akande, Olusegun Osoba, amongst others, promised restructuring during the 2015 electioneering but reneged on their promises after the election of Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd) as President.

He said, Even those who came into office advocating federalism like Osinbajo, Tinubu, Osoba, Akande. You remember how they came into office under restructuring, they now say restructuring is not their priority.

Osinbajo is now telling us that there are many things to restructuring, which one are they talking of. The restructuring they put in the manifesto of APC, which one is that? The restructuring el-Rufai recommended in 2018, which one is that?

The restructuring Buhari agreed with (Tunde) Bakare and he contested election with him in 2011, which one is that? Bakare still says it loud and clear that it is restructuring I agreed with you before I contested election with you.

Adebanjo said at 93, he is a very unhappy man because Nigerias original Independence constitution, which outlined true federalism and agreed upon by the founding fathers of the country was suspended by the military after the 1966 coup.

The Afenifere leader said that the 1960 Constitution embrace fiscal federalism and encouraged regional autonomy, noting that restructuring is the way forward.

He insisted that the 1999 Constitution foisted on the country by the military is a fraud and there is the need to revisit the law guiding how Nigerians agree to live together.

The nonagenarian said, How can you say a product of the fraud would amend the fraud?

They cannot rule us under the rule of the thumb and those of us who fought for democracy will keep quiet? No, it cant work.

In 2021, Buhari telling me Nigerias constitution is not negotiable? What a balderdash! What an insult! That is not the agreement we made with the founding fathers.

Who made this constitution? Is it ours? Let him (Buhari) dispute that.

Buhari, in his address on Friday, had said, Nigeria is for all of us. Its unity is not negotiable. And its ultimate success can only be achieved if we all come together with a common goal of having peace and prosperity for our nation.

Read more:

I dont believe in 2023 elections -Afenifere leader Adebanjo - Punch Newspapers

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on I dont believe in 2023 elections -Afenifere leader Adebanjo – Punch Newspapers

Rice University Ranks Last Among Texas Schools in Survey of Free Speech Tolerance – The Texan

Posted: at 1:55 am

Austin, TX, September 29, 2021 Last year, students ranked the University of Texas at Austin (UT) second from the bottom in a nationwide survey of tolerance for expression. Now, in a larger sample of universities, two schools have ranked lower than UT: the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) and Rice University.

According to a new study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech advocacy and research group, Rice students show relatively low tolerance for certain controversial opinions and feel that their administration and professors do not clearly protect free speech.

The study collects survey data from 159 colleges around the country. Six Texas colleges are included in the ranking: Texas A&M University (TAMU), Southern Methodist University (SMU), Texas Tech, UT, UTD, and Rice.

TAMU was 25 on the list, the highest rank out of the six. Rice was the least tolerant in Texas with a rank of 135.

Baylor University was included in the survey but did not appear in the ranking because FIRE keeps a separate category for schools that openly prioritize other values above free speech, often religious or military schools.

Importantly, the survey is not a rating of official speech policies. It is a simple questionnaire given to students regarding how comfortable they feel expressing themselves and their tolerance for the expression of others.

Texas-Specific Data

For example, one section of the survey asked respondents how strongly they would support or oppose their schools allowing speakers to promote certain controversial ideas. 38 percent of Rice students would support the rights of a speaker with the message, The police should be abolished because they are racist, the highest percentage out of all the Texas schools. Rice tied with UT for the most support for a speaker with the message, Looting is a justifiable form of protest, with 21 percent of students at both schools saying they would support their school allowing the message.

By contrast, 17 percent of Rice students would support the rights of a speaker with the message, Abortion should be completely illegal. Only one school showed lower support for the rights of a speaker with this message: Texas Tech, at 16 percent.

With regards to campus leadership, students at Rice seemed to find their administration less committed to free expression than other schools. 3 percent of Rice students said it was extremely clear that their administration protects free speech, the lowest out of any included Texas school. By comparison, 20 percent of Texas Tech students said it was extremely clear that their administration protects free speech.

Another question asked respondents how comfortable they would feel publicly disagreeing with a professor on a controversial topic. At both Texas Tech and UTD, 14 percent of students said they would feel very comfortable challenging their professors, the highest percentage out of all the Texas schools. Rice came in last with only 4 percent of students saying they would feel very comfortable challenging their professor.

More students at Rice than any other included Texas school said it was not at all likely for their administration to defend the speech rights of a controversial speaker.

Rice also led the pack with the greatest share of students willing to block others from attending a campus speech. Compared to the other schools, Rice students are also more willing to shout down campus speakers to prevent them from speaking.

Overall Data

The collected results of the nationwide survey reflect the Texas trend of greater tolerance for left-leaning controversial views than right-leaning controversial views. 11 percent of students in the total survey would strongly support the rights of a speaker with the message, Transgender people have a mental disorder. By contrast, 34 percent of students would strongly support the rights of a speaker with the message, White people are collectively responsible for structural racism and use it to protect their privilege.

The surveys authors also note widespread willingness to disrupt or stop campus lectures. Two-thirds of all students say it is acceptable to shout down speakers to prevent them from speaking. 40 percent of students say blocking others from attending a campus speech is acceptable, and just under a quarter of students say violence can be acceptable to stop a campus event a 4 percent increase from last years data.

Other Schools

Another free speech advocacy group sued UT over its vague speech policies and won last year. After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals called UTs Campus Climate Response Team the clenched fist in the velvet glove of student speech regulation and remanded the case, UT agreed to change its speech codes and the case was resolved.

Survey questions and answers for each of the included Texas schools can be read here.

The rest is here:
Rice University Ranks Last Among Texas Schools in Survey of Free Speech Tolerance - The Texan

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Rice University Ranks Last Among Texas Schools in Survey of Free Speech Tolerance – The Texan

Free speech at SPU isn’t the issue – The Falcon

Posted: at 1:55 am

Illustration by Micky Flores-Nieves

The topic of free speech at Seattle Pacific University and on college campuses across the country has recently become a topic of much contention.

Organizations like Turning Point USA and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education make the claim that free speech is under attack and that Conservative political and cultural ideals are being forced out in favor of political correctness. Former President Donald Trump even signed an executive order in 2019 that demanded publicly funded universities extend the freedom of speech to everyone on campus.

But is free speech even being threatened at all, or are people just afraid of accepting the consequences of their actions?

The idea of free speech in America comes from the First Amendment, which prohibits the government and public institutions from denying people the right to express their beliefs. Simply put, people are allowed to believe and say whatever they want, so long as their words dont incite harm to others (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

This is a very important right that we have in this country, but it is often misunderstood.

While any individual can publicly say anything, so long as it doesnt cause harm to other people, the public can say whatever they want in response. In that situation, the public is not violating the individuals free speech at all; they are simply expressing their own free speech.

An argument could be made that the freedom of speech is being violated at SPU if, and only if, the Board of Trustees declared that certain ideas or ideologies were not allowed to be expressed on campus. This hasnt happened, though, and there are no signs of that ever changing.

So, what even is happening, and why is SPU having this conversation?

In his recent article for The Falcon, alumni Carl Cederborg makes the claim that students who are accused of any myriad of so-called phobias are being ostracized and people are no longer putting politics aside to agree to disagree. This apparently is a sign that free speech on campus is in a perilous state.

I struggle to see how this ostracization for holding homophobic, Islamophobic, or transphobic ideas (which Cederborg brings up as examples) is even a problem, much less a sign of declining free speech. If most students at SPU are refusing to accept discriminatory ideas and are ostracizing those who hold them, then theyre just expressing their own right to free speech, not violating anyone elses.

No one at SPU is being censored (as evidenced by the article in question), and last years decision by the Board of Trustees to keep their homophobic hiring policy proves that the people in power at this school certainly arent going to stop or punish anyone who is accused of or holds homophobic beliefs. So, it must be asked, in what way is your free speech even being threatened?

The problem here seems to be that free speech at SPU isnt being threatened at all, but rather peoples actions now have consequences. This seems to be upsetting for those who refuse to reflect on the ways in which their beliefs and words can harm others. Hateful beliefs inspire hateful actions, and those that would be harmed by those actions have every right to refuse to associate with it.

Even if Cederborg was correct about the perilous state of free speech at SPU, students shouldnt have to interact and associate with hateful ideas, especially ideas that are hateful to them specifically. A persons sexual, religious, and gender identity is an immensely important part of who they are and refusing to associate with these so-called phobias is how identities that arent either straight, cisgender, or Christian will become accepted and part of everyday life. This hardly seems like a problem.

There are still many healthy political discussions and disagreements at SPU, but if your politics amount to not accepting another person for who they are, why should anyone else have to abide by that? The only eggshells that folks right-of-center have to walk on deal only with the question of being an accepting and humane person. No one is being ostracized for wanting taxes to be lower or for preferring less government control.

Peoples identities arent politics.

View post:
Free speech at SPU isn't the issue - The Falcon

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free speech at SPU isn’t the issue – The Falcon

Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Free Speech for Christian Flag on Government Property – National Review

Posted: at 1:55 am

Boston City Hall(peterspiro/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court took five more cases this morning for this years term, including a Ted Cruz challenge to campaign finance rules. The most hot-button case isShurtleff v. City of Boston, a lawsuit against the city of Boston for refusing to temporarily raise a Christian flag on a government-owned flagpole in front of its city hall. (Sadly, the suit does not demand that anything more dramatic be done to Boston City Hall, which is possibly the ugliest public building in America). The plaintiffs are Harold Shurtleff and the organization he runs, Camp Constitution, which seeks to promote awareness and understanding of Americas Judeo-Christian moral heritage. Shurtleff argues that the city discriminated against his speech by refusing to fly an explicitly Christian symbol, given that it has flown other flags with partially religious or anti-religious messages but justified its decision on the grounds that [t]he City of Boston maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles. . As the First Circuit, which ruled in favor of Boston, summarized Shurtleffs case:

In the past, the pole in dispute has displayed country flags (according to the complaint, those of Albania, Brazil, Cuba, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, Panama, the Peoples Republic of China, Peru, Portugal, and also that of the territory of Puerto Rico) as well as the flag of the Chinese Progressive Association, the LGBT rainbow flag, the transgender rights flag, the Juneteenth flag commemorating the end of slavery, and that of the Bunker Hill Association. Some of these third-party flags contain what Shurtleff alleges is religious symbolism. For instance, the Portuguese flag contains dots inside the blue shields represent[ing] the five wounds of Christ when crucified and thirty dots that represents [sic] the coins Judas received for having betrayed Christ. The Bunker Hill Flag contains a red St. Georges cross. And the City flag itself includes the Boston seals Latin inscription, which translates to God be with us as he was with our fathers. But nothing in the record indicates that the City has ever allowed the flag of any religion to be raised on the flagpole at issue.

Two years ago, the Court upheld the maintenance of a cross on public property as a World War I memorial. That, however, was an easier case for the cross: the government was defending keeping it rather than resisting it, so there was no free speech issue, only an Establishment Clause issue, and the cross had clear secular historical significance as a war memorial as well as its religious significance. Shurtleffs challenge asks the Court to go further in defending religious speech as free speech, and may explicitly draw the contrast to some of the flags the government refused to fly. The case will likely be decided in May or June.

View original post here:
Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Free Speech for Christian Flag on Government Property - National Review

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Free Speech for Christian Flag on Government Property – National Review

EFF, Access Now, and Partners to European Parliament: Free Speech, Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights Should Not be Up for Negotiation in the…

Posted: at 1:55 am

The European Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the proposals discussed here on Sept. 30 by a vote of 15+/9-. The proposals now go to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), which will develop a position with a vote scheduled for November 8.

European Union (EU) civil society organizations, led by EFF and Access Now, are keeping a sharp eye on the myriad proposals to amend the European Commissions Digital Services Act (DSA) ahead of important committee votes in the European Parliament (EP). We want to see the DSA, which will overhaul regulations for online platforms, foster a new era of transparency and openness between tech platforms and Internet users. It should protect fundamental rights online and provide Europeans withgreater control over their Internet experience.

To ensure the DSA is moving in the right direction, we are calling on the European Parliament to reject proposals that cross the line to undermine pillars of the e-Commerce Directive crucial in a free and democratic society. In a letter to members of Parliament today, we are sending a clear message that free speech online,protection of marginalized groups, and respect for users private communication are key principles that should not be up for negotiation.

Specifically, proposals by the EP Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to limit liability exemptions for internet companies that perform basic functions of content moderation and content curation would contradict EU Court of Justice case law and result in over-removal of legitimate content at large scale. These dangerous ideas, up for committee vote this week, should be rejected. The DSA should make sure that online intermediaries continue to benefit from comprehensive liability exemptions in the EU and not be held liable for content provided by users. Any modifications that result in short-sighted content removals of legitimate speech or which otherwise do not comply with fundamental rights protections under the EU Charter and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice should be rejected.

Further, measures that would force companies to analyze and indiscriminately monitor users communication or use upload filters have no place in the DSA. Protecting the privacy of users and their personal data is a fundamental right laid down in the EU Charter. They should honor users expectation of privacy and protect their right to communicate free of monitoring and censorship.

We are extremely concerned about trusted flaggers proposals that favor the powerful and would give politicians and popular public figures special advantages not available to ordinary users. Government and law enforcement agencies would get first-class treatment if platforms are obligated to prioritize their notices. This not only opens the door to misuse, but affords ordinary users second-class treatmentan anathema to free expression in democratic societies. Platforms should not be forced to apply one set of rules to ordinary users and a more permissive set of rules to influencer accounts and politician.

For the letter to the European Parliament:https://www.eff.org/document/dsa-joint-letter-ep

For more on the DSA:https://www.eff.org/issues/eu-policy-principles

For the statement by Access Now:https://accessnow.org/civil-society-eu-digital-services-act

Read the original here:
EFF, Access Now, and Partners to European Parliament: Free Speech, Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights Should Not be Up for Negotiation in the...

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on EFF, Access Now, and Partners to European Parliament: Free Speech, Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights Should Not be Up for Negotiation in the…

Colleyville principals critical race theory controversy spurs free speech lawsuit against district – The Dallas Morning News

Posted: at 1:55 am

Updated at 8:45 p.m. with the judges ruling.

A judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order against Grapevine-Colleyville ISD on Monday after a Grapevine Republican Party precinct chair claimed board president Jorge Rodriguez and the district violated his free speech rights.

Mitchell Ryans lawsuit states that he was prevented from speaking at length about Colleyville Heritage Principal James Whitfield during an August board meeting. The district has a policy prohibiting speakers from identifying district employees and other people by name during the open public forum, and Ryan mentioned Whitfield by name.

U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas said there wasnt enough proof that a policy to limit speech was unconstitutional, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The judges ruling came on the same night trustees for Grapevine-Colleyville ISD met for a regularly scheduled school board meeting, one week after a special meeting moved the group one step closer to not renewing the contract of the embattled principal.

In the lawsuit, Ryan said he tried to speak in support of Whitfield but Rodriguez would not allow him to continue. Rodriguez asked Ryan to stop using Whitfields name, to which Ryan asked if the president was trying to keep him from speaking.

GCISD spokeswoman Kristin Snively said the policy about not using names has been in place since 2004, with few changes.

Ryan has retained Austin-based Tony McDonald as his attorney. McDonald is the general counsel for Empower Texans, a statewide conservative political group that endorses Republican candidates with hard-line conservative views.

Ryan did not speak during the public forum at Monday nights meeting, despite his attorneys assertion last week that he had planned to.

According to a copy of the lawsuit posted on the Facebook group Colleyville Citizens for Accountability, Ryan sought nominal damages, actual damages and injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional restrictions of Mr. Ryans rights protected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit says Ryan has been and will be prohibited from addressing the board regarding Principal Whitfields efforts to promote critical [race] theory at Colleyville Heritage High School.

It also states that Ryan opposes critical race theory and is vocal about Whitfields efforts to promote it, and that the board can reasonably expect Ryan and others to share their opinions about the matter.

In a July 26 board meeting, former school board candidate Stetson Clark invoked Whitfields name multiple times in an effort to allege that the principal, who is on paid administrative leave, was responsible for introducing critical race theory into the district.

The district and Whitfield have said numerous times that critical race theory, an academic framework that probes the way policies and laws uphold systemic racism, is not taught in GCISD. After months of back-and-forth, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a bill that aims to further ban critical race theory from Texas classrooms, even after educators and advocacy groups fought against the move for months.

Read more here:
Colleyville principals critical race theory controversy spurs free speech lawsuit against district - The Dallas Morning News

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Colleyville principals critical race theory controversy spurs free speech lawsuit against district – The Dallas Morning News

Businessman defends free speech in posts against science and in favor of Bolsonaro’s government – Rdio Senado – Lodi Valley News.com

Posted: at 1:55 am

Businessman Otavio Fakhoury has denied being a promoter of fake news and hate speech. But he defended his posts against vaccination and for the benefit of the covid group. He alleged persecution for being a right-wing political activist. Despite highlighting the row with the businessman, Senator Marcos Ruggiero (DEM-RO) warned against disrespecting free speech. The argument was refuted by Ruggiero Carvalho (PT-SE), who was cited as having committed a crime.

copyPublications deprive businessmen of fake and anti-democratic news, and he says he is persecuted for being politically active. Governors are demanding freedom of speech, but the opposition alerts that false news about the pandemic is a crime. Reporter Herica Christian. Businessman Otavio Fakhoury denied the accusation that he is an advocate of false news and hate speech. He confirmed posts on social media in which he expressed his opposition to vaccination and the use of masks in favor of the so-called covid kit and the herd immunity thesis based on his own experiences. They said they are personal opinions within the right to freedom of expression. Ottavio Fakhoury declared that he is not a friend of President Bolsonaro, but confirmed his closeness to Federal Representative Eduardo Bolsonaro and his electoral donations in the 2018 elections and more recently from works for the government. About the Forsa Brasil Institute, which brokered an alleged contract between AstraZeneca and the Ministry of Health through vaccine sellers, Ottavio Fakhoury said he was the vice president and financier of FIFA, but denied his participation in anti-democratic and anti-science positions. The businessman is being investigated by the Supreme Court in the Fake News investigation, but has claimed he was harassed for being politically active. It is clear and obvious a persecution of the conservative view and field of ideas. In fact, prosecutor Augusto Arras, in his statement, when analyzing the same tweets posted here, said that although they were harsh statements, they were not a crime. So, this view is there. The way I understand it is that they criminalize opinion in Brazil. By stating that he disagrees with many of Ottavio Fakhourys positions, Senator Marcos Ruggiero, of the Rondnia Democratic Party, warned against trying to censor because the businessman defends the government. This is a guarantee that the voice of the citizens will be heard in showing their different political and ideological currents that exist in the society. Freedom of expression acts as a thermometer for a democratic state. When freedom of expression begins to diminish, the trend is to become an authoritarian state. The former President of the Republic spoke of nonsense. whats up? Will anyone be free? The current president is also talking about nonsense. Will anyone be free? Senator Ruggiero Carvalho, of the PTSD Sergipe party, rejected the argument for free speech. One thing is freedom of expression, and the other is encouraging people to act in a way that puts their lives and the lives of others at risk. Todays agent also contributed to 596,163 deaths. He did not exercise freedom of expression, but rather the form of opinion that generated behavior that threatened peoples lives. This is a crime. Ottavio Fakhoury confirmed a contract with Petrobras to rent a property, but denied using the money to promote pocket sites. He also defended Prevent Senior and said he had intended to launch a teleconsulting app to prescribe a covid toolkit, such as the Health Ministrys Tratecov, which was eventually scrapped. From Senate Radio, Herica Christian.

View post:
Businessman defends free speech in posts against science and in favor of Bolsonaro's government - Rdio Senado - Lodi Valley News.com

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Businessman defends free speech in posts against science and in favor of Bolsonaro’s government – Rdio Senado – Lodi Valley News.com

Free speech on campus – The Criterion

Posted: at 1:55 am

Free speech has been a hot topic on campus lately.

Colorado Mesa University (CMU) has always allowed the public to speak and promote their ideas with little to no restriction. As long as there are no students or staff in danger, the First Amendment right to speak freely has been upheld.

On Sept. 16, President John Marshall emailed a statement addressing the recent controversy on campus. A member of the public attracted students when he started to preach outside of Dominguez Hall. This is not unusual.

The right to free speech is what allows us to be individuals. He was just being himself. I think his message was received poorly because of all the people heckling him, freshman mechanical engineering major Colin McArthur said.

Many students brought flags to the gathering, ranging from Pride flags to flags featuring pentagrams. These actions are also protected by the right to free speech. The debates drew a crowd that began a yelling match. The public speaker declined to comment.

I want to be clear that our campus is a public place where free speech must be fiercely protected. As many scholars have noted over the years, protecting free speech can be messy. To be sure, protecting the rights of people to utter objectionable and offensive things can be tough but its vital in our constitutional republic, Marshall wrote in his address to the situation.

Multiple incidents like this have occurred over the years. When violence or harm has been incited, the universitys security and local police will step in and remove antagonizers when needed.

Here is the original post:
Free speech on campus - The Criterion

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free speech on campus – The Criterion