Daily Archives: February 5, 2022

Media top headlines February 4

In media news today, an AP reporter spars with the State Departments Ned Price over allegations on Russia, a report claims that Jeff Zucker and Allison Gollust gave Andrew Cuomo COVID talking points to combat Trump, and an MSNBC broadcast gets interrupted by a Lets Go Brandon flag.

Musician Neil Young appears to have had a change of heart when it comes to the right of Americans to say how they feel about a particular political issue, even if others don't agree with them.

The liberal singer threw himself into the headlines last week following a decision to remove his content from Spotify in protest over Joe Rogan's podcast, complaining the latter was spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic to his millions of listeners, and he no longer wanted to share a platform with him.

However, Young's history of speaking out on political issues runs in contrast to his current position on Rogan, considering he participated in a 2006 "Freedom of Speech tour" that traveled the country protesting the then-involvement of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, often to disagreeable crowds.

Musician Neil Young speaks during a session at the International CES Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

JOE ROGAN HITS THE RIGHT NOTE AFTER NEIL YOUNG ATTACK, SPOTIFY PLAYS DEFENSE

"I was a nervous wreck by the end of that tour. I never want to do another tour like that in my life. I mean, that was so different from every other tour Ive done," Young told Rolling Stone in a 2008 interview. "Just getting up in front of a lot of people makes you nervous. But when you know that some of them are really going to be angry at you, and youre in a crowd, and its a volatile situation, people have been drinking, whatever you know, it makes you nervous."

"It was just that critical time in history where things were turning. Things were changing," he added. "Those who feel the way we do had some hope and those who dont feel the way we do were angry that the change happened. And those people have got a voice, and they have a reason for feeling the way they do. They strongly believe in the convictions. They believe in the military."

"They believe that were doing the right thing for the world, and they have every reason to be respected for their beliefs," he said.

Comedian Joe Rogan (Photo by: Vivian Zink/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

JOE ROGAN CRITICS NEIL YOUNG AND JONI MITCHELL HAVE THEIR HISTORY OF OFFENSES

Young's then-position on respecting the beliefs of others heavily contrasted his approach to Rogan as he demanded the streaming giant choose between the two.

"They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young," he reportedly posted in a letter to his management team. "Not both."

He also wrote that Spotify has a "responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, though the company presently has no misinformation policy."

A "Freedom of Speech Tour" poster from 2006 (Freedom of Speech Tour)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Other artists followed Young's lead by pulling their music from Spotify; however the company opted to keep Rogan's content and instead implemented a "content advisory" label to combat the spread of misinformation.

Rogan also issued an apology and promised to expand the viewpoints he brought onto his show.

Fox Business' Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Flashback: Neil Young participated in 'Freedom of Speech Tour' before advocating censorship of Joe Rogan - Fox News

If the great campaigners for free speech of the past, such as Baruch Spinoza or Mary Wollstonecraft or Frederick Douglass, were alive today, they would surely declare the 21st century an unprecedented golden age. So suggests Jacob Mchangama in his new history of free speech.

Its a claim that might raise a few eyebrows. This, after all, is an age in which, from China to Saudi Arabia, dictatorial rulers imprison and kill political opponents with impunity. An age in which governments in formally democratic nations such as India use the judicial system to try to silence critics. An age in which more than 1,400 journalists have been murdered in 30 years. An age in which governments across the globe desperately seek ways of curbing speech on social media they consider dangerous. And in which, in the west, there is a constant debate about cancel culture and the erosion of academic freedom.

Mchangama, a leading campaigner for free speech, is not trying to dismiss the reality of contemporary censorship. He is suggesting, rather, that in historical terms, we have never been more free to speak our minds. But this leads to a paradox. The very fact that, certainly in the west, we live in far more open societies has led many to be sanguine and dismissive of the threat that restrictions on speech can impose upon us. The very success of historical struggles can obscure the lessons of those struggles.

Historically, the demand for free speech was at the heart of the fight for social justice. From the challenge posed by freethinkers in 10th-century Islam to the abolitionist struggle in 19th-century America, from the suffragette movement to campaigns for liberation from colonial rule, there has long been a recognition that democracy, social justice and free speech go hand in hand and that censorship was a weapon wielded by the powerful to stymie social change.

Today, though, the issues seem more confusing. Much censorship, particularly in liberal democracies, is imposed in the name of protecting not the powerful but the powerless or the vulnerable: laws against hate speech, for instance, or restricting the scope of racists or bigots. And where once the left was clearly opposed to censorship, many now support restrictions in the name of the progressive good. As the left has vacated the ground of free speech, the right and the far right have become encamped upon it. This has further distorted the debate, the cause of free speech coming to be seen as the property of the right, making many on the left even more wary of the idea.

One of the ironies, though, is that many arguments used today to defend speech restrictions as protections for the powerless are often the same as those once used by the powerful to protect their interests from challenge. When the US abolitionist newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in 1837 by a pro-slavery mob in Illinois, a southern newspaper blamed him for his own death, as he had utterly disregarded the sentiments of a large majority of the people of that place. A century and a half later, we heard the same arguments in calls for the banning of The Satanic Verses or in claims that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were responsible for their own deaths, because they, too, had disregarded the sentiments of many Muslims.

Or take hate speech. In the 1950s, there was a major debate about the wording of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the seminal documents of human rights, adopted by the UN in 1966. The draft proposal sought to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hostility that constitutes an incitement to violence. The Soviet Union wanted to delete the reference to violence and make any form of hatred illegal. Such a move, warned Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the drafting committee, would be extremely dangerous as any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred and consequently prohibited. Half a century on, Roosevelts warning seems highly prescient.

Instances in which the expansion of speech has facilitated the spread of obnoxious or dangerous ideas are well-documented: from the newly invented printing press giving fuel to witch-hunts in early modern Europe; to newspapers playing a major role in whipping up the racist frenzy that led to lynchings in 19th-century America; to the medias role in the 20th century in fomenting hatred against Jews in Germany and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Yet we can also see from the historical record that while it is necessary to legally curtail incitement to violence, trying to combat hatred more broadly through censorship can be both ineffective and dangerous. One of the deepest-held beliefs about the dangers of free speech is the Weimar myth: the belief that unrestrained freedom of speech allowed the Nazis to spread their poisonous ideas in 1920s Germany and that restrictions on speech and the suppression of antisemitic propaganda would have stalled the rise of Hitler. In fact, the Weimar republic, while constitutionally supportive of free speech, possessed what we would now call hate speech laws and powers to shut down newspapers. Hundreds of Nazis were prosecuted under these laws. Between 1923 and 1933, the viciously antisemitic newspaper Der Strmer was either confiscated or tried in court on 36 occasions and its editor, Julius Streicher, twice jailed.

Many scholars argue that despite such laws Weimar courts were unduly lenient towards hate-mongers and that judges sympathised with Nazi aims. Other studies suggest that such leniency was the exception, not the rule. Wherever the truth lies in this debate, the primary failure in preventing the rise of Nazism was not legal but political. And this is true of hatred and bigotry today.

We often forget, too, that the victims of censorship are more often than not minorities and those fighting for social change. From Indian climate change activists being charged with promoting enmity between communities to British police charging feminists with hate crimes, censorship in the name of preventing hatred is widely used to target social activists.

We are the inheritors of centuries of struggle against restrictions on what we are able to say. If we forget the lessons of those struggles, we are in danger also of letting the gains of those struggles slip away.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columist

Go here to see the original:
Freedom of speech was too hard won to be cavalier now about censorship - The Guardian

The state Board of Regents will announce a new free speech training module via email from President Mike Richards on Wednesday. The training will be required for all members of the University of Iowa and other regent institutions and has to be completed before the end of the spring semester.

University of Iowa students, staff, and faculty will need to complete a free speech training by the end of the spring semester, President Barbara Wilson announced in an email on Tuesday.

Wilson wrote that all members of the university community will receive an email on Wednesday from Mike Richards, the state Board of Regents President, and Greta Rouse, chair of the regents Free Speech Committee, announcing the release of the new free speech training module. The training will be administered to all three public universities in Iowa, including Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.

All faculty, staff, and students are expected to complete the training prior to the end of the spring 2022 semester, the announcement reads. This training is required by Iowa law, is being provided on all three university campuses, and is important to our efforts in educating the campus community about First Amendment rights to free expression.

The training module will be online and will take 15 to 20 minutes to complete, the email reads.

The regents have implemented several freedom of speech-based policies in the last two years. In 2020, the regents created the free speech committee to study the issue and evaluate implementation of its 2019 free speech policy.

The regents also sent out a free speech survey to the universities in November, asking respondents to rank various statements based on their level of agreement.

Free speech issues in higher education were a central focus of Republican lawmakers during the 2021 legislative session. The House Government Oversight Committee held hearings on a student who said he was threatened with discipline for remarks made in a College of Dentistry email thread, and the Legislature passed multiple bills relating to free speech on campus.

A 2021 Knight Foundation study, released this January, found that students views on the security of free speech fell 12 percentage points between 2019 and 2021. The study also found that people of color on campuses feel less protected by the First Amendment.

Read more:
State Board of Regents to announce required free speech training - UI The Daily Iowan

In a low-resolution video interview from the Knox County Jail, Benjamin Carpenter said he plans to beat the charges at his federal trial this summer.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. A Knoxville man accused of trying to help ISIS terrorists said he plans to argue his actions are protected under the First Amendment when he represents himself in a federal court trial this summer, he told 10News.

In a series of interviews from the Knox County Jail, Benjamin Carpenter, 31, said he has no regrets and does not consider himself a terrorist though he does admit support for the Islamic State terrorist group, which has claimed responsibility for shootings, bombings and beheadings.

"I have no qualms of being described as pro-Islamic State," he said. "Because we share the same kind of methodology and outlook."

In March 2021, federal agents arrested Carpenter while he was working as a dog-walker. Prosecutors said he agreed to assist an undercover FBI agent to transcribe and translate a 25-minute ISIS video titled "Bleeding Campaigns."

The video "documents ISISs military operations against Egyptian troops, including ISIS fighters engaging in battle, executing a suicide bombing, and capturing and executing three individuals," court documents showed.

He faces charges that the translation was an attempt to provide material assistance to the terror group.

"It's simply not a crime what they're accusing me of," Carpenter said.

He said he helped run a pro-ISIS website and regularly translated material for it. "Its similar to what weve done previously," he said of the Bleeding Campaigns video. "The Islamic state would release something in Arabic and I would find it beneficial and I would translate it."

"[The website's] stated goal was to spread the Islamic creed, a methodology, and not watering that down for anybody," Carpenter said. "And if that happens to support individuals overseas so be it."

While Carpenter's views may be repugnant to many people's beliefs in East Tennessee, translating the video isn't a crime said defense attorney T. Scott Jones.

"Its a question of whether or not you materially assisted a terrorist organization and thats going to be a question for the judge and ultimately one for the jury to decide," said Jones, who is not connected with the case. "Unless he did some overt act other than just translating, I think the government is going to have a hard row to hoe, so to speak."

But a former federal prosecutor who reviewed the case said there's likely more to the charges that have not yet been unsealed or declassified. Speaking on background because he did not have inside knowledge of the case, he said the U.S. Attorney's Office rarely brings cases unless prosecutors are confident they can win.

"God Molded Me Into What I am Today"

Carpenter attended Bearden Middle School and West High School, before moving to Myrtle Beach his senior year, he said. He wasn't raised as a practicing Muslim. Later in life, he converted and began to subscribe to radical philosophies.

"I was kind of molded over a series of events and learning and gaining knowledge," he said. "Eventually God just molded me into what I am today."

By May 2015 he was on the FBI's radar and agents searched his home in Virginia, where Carpenter lived with a girlfriend and worked as a bread baker, court documents reveal.

At the time, he told FBI agents he believed the attacks on Sept. 11 were justified and, in 2016, said U.S. citizens should "expect to be victims of an attack," prosecutors said.

Since then, Carpenter said he's been prepared for federal authorities to arrest him.

"I kind of knew that the government would try to snag me at some point," he said. "They've been trying to get me since 2015."

He moved back to East Tennessee around 2-and-a -half years before his arrest, his mother, Denise Carpenter, told a federal judge. She assured the court in spring 2021 she would make sure Carpenter followed release rules and showed up for future appearances if allowed out of jail while he waited for a trial.

She testified he does not have a bank account and worked only 10 hours per week at a pet sitting service.

Prosecutors said Carpenter used his mother's University of Tennessee issued computer to write a blog post for the pro-ISIS website they allege he operated.

Federal magistrate judge Debra Poplin denied the requestto release him, citing a "gave danger to both the local and international communities."

"His faith in Islam and trust in God keeps him humble and give him strength to be willing and able to see and give his best in his current circumstance," Denise Carpenter wrote in a text to 10News. "Would he rather he have his freedom? Of course, as would his family, who misses him greatly."

Federal prosecutors said Carpenter grew "more and more prolific" after his 2015 run-ins with the FBI.

Prosecutors submitted more than two dozen exhibits to the court including videos, articles on beheadings and weapons of mass destruction, accusing Carpenter of "Jihad with a pen."

"I'm a regular person, not violent per se," Carpenter told 10News. He denied ever planning or participating in violence. "If I did, the government would surely know about it."

Still, he said he supported most violence perpetrated by the Islamic State.

"Some you would disagree with," he said. "Just like an American would disagree with some attacks, but they would maybe agree with the certain war that goes on."

In court transcripts, prosecutors said Carpenter talked with other ISIS sympathizers online and praised the Nashville Christmas Day bombing. When asked by 10News, he expressed support for the 9/11 attacks.

"They're definitely justified," Carpenter said.

Beaten back by international militaries, East Tennessee State University Terrorism Scholar Paul Kamolnick said ISIS relies on supporters like Carpenter to survive and spread their ideologies.

"What theyve been reduced to is basically a strategy of individualized terrorism," he said, saying they rely on the internet and online translations to spread propaganda. "That's the only way they reach audiences."

"God willing, I'll be found not guilty"

Prosecutors put it more bluntly; "The defendant supports ISIS-inspired violence, praises ISIS-inspired violence and believes violence is justified in furtherance of jihad," they wrote in court documents.

But Carpenter believes the U.S. Constitution protects him under the first amendment, guaranteeing him freedom of speech. He said he's been preparing for years to represent himself, expecting he would get arrested.

In handwritten federal court filings, he argues his conduct translating documents doesn't rise to the level of "material support" for ISIS. He argues that the court needs to take into consideration the alleged conduct of the act of terrorism.

"The alleged conduct [...] revolves around editing a translation clearly not what an ordinary person thinks of when 'a federal crime of terrorism' comes to mind," he wrote.

"God willing, and with his permission, [the case] will be dismissed and thrown out. If it makes it to trial, God willing Ill be found not guilty," Carpenter told 10News.

He said he's not worried if he is found guilty and sentenced to the maximum possible penalty 20 years in federal prison.

"I can worship God inside a jail or outside a jail. If God wills for me to be in jail, he wills for me to be in jail," he said.

Carpenter's case is scheduled for a jury trial in late August.

Continued here:
Knoxville man accused of trying to help ISIS terrorists says his actions are protected under freedom of speech - WBIR.com

CHARLESTON Members of a House of Delegates committee approved a bill Thursday to provide more curriculum transparency and limit the teaching of anti-racism concepts commonly labeled as Critical Race Theory while also ending further discussion and amendments to the bill.

The House Education Committee recommended House Bill 4011 Thursday afternoon in a 18-5 roll call vote. The bill now heads to the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee heard nearly two hours of questions from its counsel, a representative for the Department of Education, and the bills lead sponsor, Delegate Chris Pritt, R-Kanawha. But Delegate Caleb Hanna, R-Nicholas, made a motion to call the previous question on the strike-and-insert amendment, which cuts off all debate, and move the bill.

Will this mean the bill will come out of the committee with no formal debate whatsoever, no opportunity for the minority to make its case in debate, asked Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson.

Through this process, have we eliminated any opportunity to offer amendments to the amendment, asked committee minority Vice Chairman Cody Thompson.

If you vote it down, then you have the chance to offer amendments, said committee Chairman Joe Ellington, R-Mercer.

HB 4011, also called the Anti-Stereotyping Act, would require schools to post all training materials and curriculum online pertaining to non-discrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, bias, or any combination of those concepts.

The bill would prohibit the promotion or endorsement by school employees and county school boards of stereotypes based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The bill would not prohibit the discussion of how stereotypes have been used to discriminate or data that reveals disparities between categories of people based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

In a section, labeled Preservation of Freedom of Speech, the bill would prohibit schools and county board of education officials from compelling students and staff to adopt any belief or concept that one race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior to another. It states that no person should be blamed for the action committed in the past by someone of the same race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay for anti-racism and racial equity consultants or require students and staff to attend any sessions with such consultants, though it does protect voluntary attendance.

According to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that offers model legislation similar to HB 4011, 25 states have introduced bills aimed at limiting the teaching of philosophies based in part on Critical Race Theory.

Opponents of CRT say it teaches racism is systemic in American systems of government and institutions with white people inherently benefiting from these systems at the expense of marginalized minorities, such as Black people or the LGBTQ community.

Under questioning, Pritt told committee members that he was unaware of any specific instance in West Virginia where philosophies based on CRT are being taught in West Virginia.

Just because we cant cite a specific instance doesnt mean its not happening, Pritt said. Our jobs as legislators is to be proactive, not to react to everythingI cant give you the specifics on one particular issue.

Instead of protecting free speech rights, opponents of these kinds of anti-CRT and anti-racism bills, such as the West Virginia chapter of the ACLU, believe this legislation hinders freedom of speech and stifles discussion of complicated topics, such as racial injustice, discrimination, civil rights, and slavery.

This bill is designed to intimidate teachers from discussing diversity and equity, the ACLU-WV posted on Twitter. We need to teach issues like race the same way we teach math and science: as accurately as possible.

Delegate Ric Griffith, D-Wayne, said he was concerned about the unintended consequences of the bill. He said the bill could limit discussion of historical topics in schools.

Where does history and opinion overlap, Griffith asked. I can see there would be some gray areasalmost all questions require an opinionespecially in history. Is it a possibility that this could stir a pot that could boil?

(Adams can be contacted at sadams@newsandsentinel.com)

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post here:
Republican committee members force vote on anti-critical race theory bill - The Daily Times