Daily Archives: May 18, 2023

MADISON, Wis. (AP) The fight over racial equity and free speech on Wisconsin college campuses is intensifying, mirroring a national battle as Republicans work to close campus diversity offices and demand that students and faculty treat conservative speakers with respect.

In the past two weeks, the states top Republican announced a push to defund the University of Wisconsin Systems diversity efforts a move the Democratic governor lambasted as ridiculous. Nonetheless, the UW Systems chief announced Thursday that he has barred schools from asking job applicants how they would support diversity.

Meanwhile, a UW-Madison student has posted racial slurs online, triggering bitter protests but no announced discipline. And a state medical college canceled a diversity symposium featuring Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson out of concerns the discussion would be too disruptive, resulting in cries of bias from conservatives.

Amid that backdrop, Republican legislative leaders held a hearing Thursday with only invited speakers to discuss how the lack of free speech and intellectual diversity on college campuses affects the quality of higher education.

I think people are talking about viewpoint diversity as being as important or more important than other types of diversity, said Republican Rep. David Murphy, chairman of the state Assemblys colleges committee, who presided over the hearing. And I think (diversity efforts arent) showing any benefits.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said its disheartening to see a hearing on free speech with only invited speakers. She said the GOP is trying to paint diversity offices as giving minorities an unfair advantage when theyre only trying to help everyone understand a broad range of perspectives.

Contrary to those opposed to these offices, our work includes protecting free speech, she said.

Republicans argue that diversity offices, designed to help minorities navigate academia, only heighten racial tensions. And the GOP has maintained for years that colleges dont give conservative presenters the same opportunities as liberals to speak on campus.

A survey released in February by the UW System, which includes 13 four-year schools, found almost half of the students who responded at least somewhat agree that administrators should bar controversial speakers if some students find the message offensive.

The issues have bubbled to the forefront this month, starting with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos announcement last week that he wants to defund campus diversity offices. He called the offices a waste of taxpayer dollars and said they exacerbate the racial divide.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has called Vos proposal ridiculous, but Vos plan tracks with a national GOP push to dismantle campus diversity offices.

Republican lawmakers in at least a dozen states have proposed more than 30 diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using the bill-tracking software Plural. Some proposals would ban DEI offices or any funding for them. Others would forbid administrators from considering diversity as part of the hiring or admissions process.

Facing potential budget cuts, UW System President Jay Rothman announced Thursday morning that he ordered chancellors on Wednesday to stop asking job seekers to supply statements on their applications describing how they would support equity and diversity.

Asked during a news conference if the move was a concession to Vos, Rothman responded by saying applicants may view the requirement as a political litmus test and not apply, hurting recruitment efforts.

Last week a white UW-Madison student posted a racist screed online in which she said she wants to see some Black people enslaved so she can abuse them. The post triggered two days of protests on Wisconsins flagship campus with students demanding the student be expelled. University officials condemned the posting but said they cant take action against legal free speech.

Meanwhile, officials at the Medical College of Wisconsin decided to cancel Fridays campus symposium focusing on the uses and abuses of government-sponsored diversity programming on college campuses and in medical, science and tech education.

The colleges president, John Raymond Sr., sent a message May 4 to students and staff saying he canceled the symposium because discussions about the event have become unacceptably disruptive. Raymond issued the message on the same day as one of the UW-Madison protests.

Johnson was slated to take part in the symposium along Murphy and John Sailer, policy director at the National Association of Scholars, a conservative group that advocates against diversity policies. Sailer posted a copy of a letter that faculty sent to Raymond on April 30 saying they opposed the pseudo-academic and potentially harmful meeting.

Sailer tweeted that the letter was a textbook hecklers veto. Johnsons office said the symposium will now be held online but the senator said in a statement that he hopes to meet with medical college leaders to discuss why they felt they couldnt host the event.

Murphy kicked off Thursdays hearing by complaining that the medical college had canceled him.

Daniel Hughes, who said he is a student at the college, told the committee that the institution leans so far left that its diversity stances sometimes trump approaching problems scientifically. For example, he said hes been taught that biological differences between races are a result of systemic racism, not genetics.

Democratic state Rep. Katrina Shankland questioned Hughes claims, saying there was no way to verify them since no one else from the college was invited to speak. A spokeswoman for the medical college didnt immediately respond to a message seeking comment Thursday.

Rothman addressed the committee for two hours, repeating his mantra that inclusion must mean something or the system will lose potential students and faculty.

See original here:
Free speech, racial equity battles are playing out on Wisconsin ... - The Associated Press

In their coverage of Thursdays Faculty Senate debate around the presence of Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Mercer on the Hoover Institutions Board of Overseers, The Stanford Daily and the Stanford Report offered a number of quotations from President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Hoover Director Condoleezza Rice that form the basis of this essay.

Murdoch had been criticized for facilitating the spread of dangerous misinformation about the 2020 Presidential election. He had admitted as much under sworn deposition during the defamation lawsuit brought against Murdochs Fox News by Dominion Voting Machines.Mercer was criticized because her own media empire has promoted the dangerous Great Replacement Theory, a virulently antisemitic, white supremacist doctrine that holds that white people are being replaced by Jewish people and other racial groups. This theory has been evoked by various mass murderers in the manifestos. A resolution was presented that the association of Rebekah Mercer and Rupert Murdoch in all positions of responsibility or honor at Stanford University be terminated due to their promulgation of dangerous, racist, and antisemitic disinformation.

Although I have strong objections to Mercer, I have chosen to focus on Murdoch because his case allows us to adjudicate whether Stanford does or does not condone misinformation.Based on the test case presented yesterday, apparently it does, via this sleight of hand misinformation is welcomed at Stanford if it is framed as simply one viewpoint amongst many and protected as free speech. The repetition of exact phrases and terms leads one to believe that Tessier-Lavigne and Rice are reading from the same script:

President Marc Tessier-Lavigne urged the senate to vote against the resolution, calling it chilling and an imposition of institutional orthodoxy during the Faculty Senate meeting. (Daily)

The Senate just reaffirmed its commitment to [academic freedom], Tessier-Lavigne said, referencing apreviousfaculty senate meeting. For the senate to adopt this resolution would be to set itself up as a thought police. (Daily)

Tessier-Lavigne spoke against the motion, which he said in effect calls for the Senate to act as an institutional body to censor two overseers. Free expression of ideas is the lifeblood of the University and its essential to our research and teaching missions, he said. (SR)

The senates foundational statement of academic freedom holds that expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal and or external coercion, [Hoover Director Condoleezza] Rice said. (Daily)

The University has been very clear that we are going to uphold not just academic freedom, but standards of freedom of speech, Rice added. And I would say that freedom of the press goes along with that. (SR)

The problem is, even if we frame this as a free speech issue, we find that free speech is not completely free. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Foxs repeated assertions that the election was stolen did in fact incite people to besiege the Capitol, violently attack those attempting to protect members of Congress and call for the murder of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the lynching of Vice President Mike Pence.

Ben Smith, writing in The New York Times, reminds us of how Foxs campaign of misinformation did in fact incite imminent lawless action High profile Fox voices, with occasional exceptions, not onlyfedthe baseless belief that the election had been stolen, but theyhelped frameJan. 6 as a decisive day of reckoning, when their audiences dreams of overturning the election could be realized.

It is remarkable to me how quickly, easily and absolutely Tessier-Lavigne and Rice erase the fact that the speech they are so passionately attached to protecting is speech that incited an attack against the democratic process and an assault on the peaceful transfer of power, one of the signal points of pride our country celebrates. Foxs lies were relentlessly blasted out before, during and after the Insurrection, but as the comments quoted above indicate, for Tessier-Lavigne and Rice, Murdochs case is simply one of a point of view that has to be protected like any other one. When law professor Deborah Hensler expressed concern that Tessier-Lavignes statement seemed to indicate that seemingly anyone, no matter their views, should rightfully be considered a candidate for a university institutional leadership appointment, in the interest of assuring freedom of expression, Director Rice told her, You have been a problem this entire time.

Now what sort of speech is so precious that Tessier-Lavigne and Rice wish to protect Murdochs free speech right to broadcast them? Here are some examples of the kind of speech that Murdoch admitted he could have stopped, but did not:

[Lou] Dobbs: How important do you believe are the concerns being expressed in a number of states about the ability of these [Dominion Voting Systems] machines not to be hacked?

[Rudy] Giuliani: The machines can be hacked. Theres no question about that. Their machines can be hacked. But its far worse than that, Lou. Dominion is a company that is owned by another company called Smartmatic It was formed really by three Venezuelans who were very close to the dictator Chavez of Venezuela and it was formed in order to fix elections.

[Sidney] Powell: The money creating [Dominion] came out of Venezuela and Cuba It is one huge, huge criminal conspiracy that should be investigated by military intelligence.

[Jeanine] Pirro: Yes, and hopefully the Department of Justice, but who knows anymore.

As NPR points out, the Dominion lawsuit disclosed texts from each of these news anchors showing that they knew what they were saying were lies.

Astonishingly, in their rush to protect Murdoch, why do Tessier-Lavigne and Rice not pause to consider the protection due to the victims of the violence Fox helped incite through its reckless and self-serving spreading of misinformation? Here is part of the testimony of US Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell:

My fellow officers and I were punched, pushed, kicked, shoved, sprayed with chemical irritants and even blinded with eye-damaging lasers by a violent mob who apparently saw us law enforcement officers, dedicated to ironically protecting them as U.S. citizens, as an impediment in their attempted insurrection, Gonell said.

In his opening statement, Gonell said that he could hear officers screaming in agony as the mob crushed them and that he heard specific threats on the lives of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the event to certify the presidential election in Bidens favor.

For the first time, I was more afraid to work at the Capitol than during my entire Army deployment to Iraq, he said. In Iraq, we expected armed violence, because we were in a war zone. But nothing in my experience in the Army, or as a law enforcement officer, prepared me for what we confronted on Jan. 6.

The Guardian reported that members of security details were so terrorized that many said goodbye to their loved ones:

The official said: The members of the VP detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives. There was a lot of yelling. There were a lot of very personal calls over the radio, so it was disturbing. I dont like talking about it.

There were calls to say goodbye to family members, so on and so forth for whatever reason it was on the ground, the VP detail thought this was about to get very ugly.

Such terrified and panicked messages were relayed from the Capitol around the time Trump tweeted to his supporters a now infamous 2:24 p.m. message in which he did nothing to calm the riot.

It is beyond belief that anyone, much less the president of a university, would claim that what Rupert Murdoch did in facilitating Foxs attack on the truth should not only be condoned, but even protected by, of all things, his academic freedom. Yes, Tessier-Lavigne called critics of such reckless and dangerous misinformation, members of his own faculty, thought police because we are supposedly infringing upon Murdochs academic freedom, and Rice repeated the same charge.

I have made clear my feeling that academic freedom has been devastatingly cheapened and instrumentalized at Stanford, and this is exactly what Tessier-Lavigne and Rice are doing. As far as I know, Rupert Murdoch is not (yet) a member of our faculty. Protecting the dissemination of misinformation under the umbrella of academic freedom is a tremendously dangerous move to make if this were to be established as legitimate, it would exonerate anyone accused of any kind of research misconduct. Yet when faculty object to these violations of ethics we are accused of imposing an orthodoxy. Such an accusation is an affront to every decent person at Stanford University.

Why are we so anxious to maintain our relationship with Rupert Murdoch, whose actions stand in direct opposition to Stanfords supposed commitment to truthful information and to producing knowledge for the public good? Why should the public ever trust us if we harbor and protect Rupert Murdoch? What does this say about Stanford University?

Since neither the University president nor the provost nor the director of the Hoover Institution, all addressees of our faculty letter, have answered the question we posed why is Rupert Murdoch affiliated with Stanford? we are free to draw our own conclusions. Two reasons stand out money and connections. Put in that light, let there be no mistake, Stanford University and the Hoover Institution are accepting money derived from corporations that have made that money by, among other things, fueling the Insurrection with misinformation and pushing antisemitic hate.

That the president of our University and the director of an institution premised on, among other things, the protection of democracy from authoritarianism, should collaborate, using such shabby pretenses and threadbare evasions, to protect the worlds largest purveyor of misinformation as he uses his vast media network to pollute public discourse and threaten the democracy of the United States, is an insult to intelligence and morally appalling. This episode may well go down in not only the history of US higher education, but even in the history of our country, as a dark stain. Tessier-Lavignes and Rices cynical, instrumental and illogical use of concepts and values we hold dear free speech and academic freedom points to a cancer deep in our leadership that seems to be metastasizing daily.

And last but not least, their high-handed bullying of the faculty and personal vendettas against those who dare call out each and every one of these transgressions shows their utter contempt for those who use their free speech in ways that displease them.

I was chastised by Director Rice for mentioning the Jeffrey Epstein case at Harvard. I did so because I wanted to remind us of what a university president can be. Here is how I ended my comments at the Faculty Senate meeting:

On Sept. 13, 2019, Harvard President Lawrence Bacow issued a statement dissociating Harvard from Jeffrey Epstein. Even though the Epstein case is not perfectly similar to that of Rupert Murdoch and the Sacklers, one thing Bacow said strikes me as relevant today:

Jeffrey Epsteins crimes were repulsive and reprehensible. I profoundly regret Harvards past association with him. Conduct such as his has no place in our society. We act today in recognition of that fact Harvard is not perfect, but you have my commitment as president that we will always strive to be better.

At stake here is the question as to whether or not Stanford has the courage to, regardless of how some may characterize the action, declare that someone who knowingly allowed the spread of misinformation which presents massive public harm has no place in our society.

On behalf of over one hundred members of the faculty of Stanford University, I ask again, what value does Rupert Murdoch bring to Stanford that overrides the damage he has brought to our country?

Continued here:
From the Community | When misinformation is free speech - The Stanford Daily

The video-sharing platform Rumble is expanding into podcasting with a deal to buy Callin, the San Francisco-based podcasting and live streaming platform. We believe the addition of Callins user-friendly app and post-production tools coupled with Rumbles substantial creator and user communities will create beneficial synergies, improving the experience of Rumbles creators and their fans, Rumble said in the announcement. It says the Callin team will continue to develop live streaming capabilities as a part of Rumble.

The addition of Callins talented team and the capabilities of its product signifies a major step in our journey to deliver greater value and tools to our creators, which will further enhance our user engagement, Rumbles Chairman and CEO Chris Pavlovski said in the joint announcement.

How much it is paying for Callin remains a work in progress, however, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rumble told shareholders that it is an all-stock deal yet the company is still in the process of evaluating and determining the fair value of Callin.

Launched in 2021 by technology entrepreneur and investor David Sacks and Axel Ericsson, Callin bills itself as a social podcasting platform that is a mashup of live audio and podcasting. Callin offers listeners a live-stream audio listening experience to call in and ask questions similar to what they have done for decades on talk radio. Once the show is over, it becomes an on-demand podcast.

I am excited to expand Callins capabilities by joining forces with Rumble, a platform with significant size, influence, and reach. As an avid proponent of the creator economy and the free flow of ideas, said Sacks. It was my own experience with the All-In Podcast that gave me the idea for Callin: I discovered how much work goes into producing a show and wanted to radically simplify the experience. I teamed up with Axel to launch the first social podcasting platform, where users can easily stream, take questions, record, edit, publish, and share content with their audience.

Sacks is a former COO at PayPal and is also a co-founder and partner at Craft Ventures, which was one of the early investors in Callin alongside Sequoia Capital and Goldcrest Capital. Under the terms of the deal, Sacks is slated to join Rumbles board of directors in the second half of June.

We remain in the position to empower and welcome independent creators offering a world class experience and the best economic toolkit on the internet, Pavlovski said in a statement. This commitment is exemplified by the acquisition of Callin where an opportunity presented itself to greatly accelerate our product roadmap and enable us to build a world class live streaming experience.

Rumble has grown popular with conservative content producers, including Dan Bongino, during the past several years for its light touch approach to content moderation. Its expansion into audio comes as the number of conservative-targeted podcasts continues to grow.

Rumble had $17.6 million in revenue during the first quarter, a 336% increase compared to a year ago which it says was driven by more ad dollars and the addition of new content. Rumble says it had an estimated 10.8 billion minutes of video watched per month during the first quarter, and its hours of uploaded video on a year over year basis increased 82% to 11,181.

We continue to capture market share from traditional streaming service providers, and most importantly Rumble is becoming home for not only our creators, but also our audiences, best evident by the increase in consumption, Pavlovski said.

The rest is here:
Free Speech Video Platform Rumble Makes Its Move Into Audio With ... - Inside Radio

There they were, back again last weekend, a small crew of masked bigots who use a Highway 101 overpass in the small San Luis Obispo County town of Templeton as a stage to proselytize for white pride.

This time, there were four men instead of two, and their hateful messaging was even uglier. The Embrace White Pride banner first displayed on April 23 had some additions three Nordic runes described as hate symbols by the Anti-Defamation League.

Two of the men wore T-shirts emblazoned with The White Race in large lettering with Save European Identity in smaller print underneath, next to what looked like The North Face corporate logo. (Does The North Face know their brand has been co-opted by racists?)

One member of the group even gave the Nazi sieg heil salute to passing motorists, according to one of the observers who showed up on the bridge to counteract the message of hate.

Several men with masks hold up an Embrace white pride flag on the Vineyard Drive Highway 101 overpass on Saturday, May 13, 2023.

So what now?

How do we let these racists know they are not welcome?

A well-attended Rally Against Hate held on the Templeton overpass on May 10 obviously didnt faze them. Neither did the condemnations posted online and in the media.

Will calling them out, once again, only serve to give the attention they crave and provide more fodder for them to post on social media?

Or would ignoring them from here on out give the impression that were giving up and moving on?

At Tuesdays meeting of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, Board Chairman John Peschong who attended the May 10 counter-protest said hes been working with Caltrans on a solution. He didnt elaborate because the item was not listed on the agenda, and a prolonged discussion risked violating the Brown Act, Californias open meeting law.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, however, several speakers pleaded with the board to do something to prevent the overpass from being used as a soapbox for hate.

I cried when I saw that sign, said North County resident Yvonne Baughman, in reference to the white pride banner. I cried for all the people and all the children this was really going to affect.

Story continues

Her husband, Tom Baughman, suggested enforcing a no loitering policy on the overpass which would essentially prohibit all gatherings there, including the MAGA displays that regularly take place there.

Yet banning displays on one overpass in Templeton if that were legally possible would most likely drive the haters to another overpass.

Then what?

Ban them from all overpasses in the county ... or the state?

While it is illegal in California to affix signs to an overpass, it is not a violation to hold signs, flags or banners, as the white supremacists were doing.

As terrible as the message is, the Constitution does allow them to stand there, Supervisor Peschong said during a break in the meeting.

Since Caltrans not the county controls the bridge, any change in policy would have to originate with the state.

And yes, it may have to apply to all overpasses in California not just to the ones where demonstrators congregate.

Thats a major undertaking, but Peschong said he isnt giving up. If state legislation is required, hell take that up with local lawmakers.

These vile messages really do hurt people, he said. You dont want people feeling that they (arent) safe in their own community.

Demonstrators walk to the Vineyard Drive Highway 101 overpass in Templeton for a rally on May 10, 2023, in response to a social media post showing two people holding an Embrace white pride banner there last week.

Could government argue that a ban on loitering on this particular overpass is needed to protect public safety?

It could try.

Theres no question that motorists take note of whats happening and many of them respond in a variety of ways honking, yelling, giving protesters the finger.

Yet theres no hard evidence of a threat to public safety. Political demonstrations on the overpass have never been reported as a contributing factor to a crash, according to CHP Public Information Officer Patrick Seebart.

There is a potential for violent interactions, however. Indeed, progressive activists were pepper-sprayed in September during a pro-democracy rally on the bridge, resulting in the arrest of an Arroyo Grande man.

That points to a need for monitoring by the Sheriffs Office, but not necessarily to a blanket ban on free speech.

So, again, how should we react?

There have been calls to out these masked cowards so they can be held accountable for fouling our county with their bile.

That could be one powerful deterrent, as cockroaches tend to scurry when you shine a light on them. Men like these deserve no safe harbor in decent society.

Another approach could be to put up a stand-against-hate billboard near the overpass as a show of support for those targeted by their hate campaign.

Meanwhile, the group that organized the Rally Against Hate is planning future events, and the Democratic Party is putting together a list of people willing to converge on the Templeton overpass to counter-protest whenever white supremacists show up.

We know this is likely not ending anytime soon, and we plan to continue countering their efforts, the group said. If youd like to be part of an email or text alert when these individuals are on the bridge, please let us know.

Thats a giant step, but heres another idea: Maybe the local Republican Party which has been noticeably silent about the sudden appearance of neo-Nazis could join in driving these Ku Klux Klan 2.0 wannabes from our midst. Same goes for the independents and the apolitical.

Because this isnt about politics.

This is about standing up for our community and telling racist haters that while they may have the right to wave their Nazi banners and salute like Brownshirts to passing motorists, they have no home here.

Their brand of hate has no place in San Luis Obispo County, and no place in California or our nation, either, because its downright un-American.

If we cant prevent them from putting their small-minded ignorance on public display, lets drown it in rainbow-colored messages of inclusivity and love.

We dont have to silence them to stop their hate.

See the original post here:
Neo-Nazis have arrived. Is it time to ban free speech on this California overpass? | Opinion - Yahoo News

Chico State speech pathology students gather for a photo at the annual Speech & Hearing Fair. Photo taken May 6th by Kaitlin Moore.

On May 6th, the Chico State Clinic for Communication Disorders hosted its annual Speech & Hearing Fair, where members of the public got the opportunity to receive free speech, hearing and language screenings. The event served people of all ages, and included food, games, and prizes as well.

For this event, we look at testing peoples speech and hearing. We also test cognition and language using screeners, so its really been an all-hitting event. We really want the community to come in if they have any sort of concerns, as this is a good place to do it, Chantel Bebee, a graduate student in the Speech Language Pathology, or SLP, program said.

The event has been hosted annually for over 20 years at Chico States Clinic for Communication Disorders, and is organized entirely by first year Masters students in the SLP program, who use this as an opportunity to give back to the community, raise awareness on speech and hearing health and also to grow in their own clinical experience.

It gives them an important experience, as theyre going to be practicing clinicians someday, Anita Anderson, one of the clinical supervisors for the SLP program at Chico State, and an alumni of the program, said. Here is a great place for these students to take what theyre learning and put it into practice.

The fair is hosted in May to help promote Better Hearing and Speech Month and bring greater awareness to speech and hearing care. Ivy Gomes, a final year graduate student in the SLP program, offered some helpful advice on maintaining good hearing and voice health.

With hearing, its important to watch the volume levels on what youre listening to, since you dont want anything at too high of a decibel level, she said. For your voice, watch for good vocal hygiene. Drink a lot of water and avoid coughing and clearing your throat as much as you can.

If you would like to learn more about what the Clinic for Communication Disorders offers to the community, please visit their website at http://www.csuchico.edu/cmsd/clinic.shtml or call 530-898-5871.

Kaitlin Moore can be reached at [emailprotected]

View original post here:
Chico State's Speech Therapy Clinic hosts annual free Speech ... - The Orion

You would not be exercising your right to free speech by protesting in such a way. It is not your speech which disrupts my enjoyment of the snooker or my ability to watch the film. It is your actions that would stop me, not your speech.

Regular readers of this column will know thatI am a passionate advocate for and defender of free speech. But the right to freedom of speech is meaningful only if we can distinguish speech from action. There is no right freely to act howsoever you wish, just because you have a message you want folk to notice.

You might claim, in the alternative, that you are exercising your right to protest in such a case. Again, you would be mistaken. European human rights law knows no such thing as a right to protest. Instead, there is a right to freedom of peaceful assemblyits in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a much more restricted right than the right to free speech. The latter is not qualified, for example, by the need to show that speech is peaceful.

Read more:Why history should be a complusory school subject

That the right to assemble is restricted to peaceful assembly means, rather obviously, that there is no right to riot. Violent public disorder is never accommodated within the right to freedom of assembly rioting is now, as it always has been, unlawful. Riot is a crime with a long history, stretching back centuries. But to what extent does the right to freedom of peaceful assembly extend to and protect public protest which, whilst not violent as such, is nonetheless deliberately designed to disrupt the lawful activities of others?

Sitting on a snooker table with a pot of orange powder is not violent, but it is clearly disruptive and is wilfully designed to be disruptive. Likewise, blockading the entrances to a theatre to prevent members of the public from getting in to watch a film. Such a sit-in is not violent, but it is manifestly disruptive. It is a forceful use of human, physical presence to coerce others.

The European Convention on Human Rights (which forms the basis of our human rights laws in Britain) is clear that the rights and freedoms it enshrines may not be used to prevent or obstruct the exercise of other peoples rights and freedoms. This is what prohibits racist speech, for example. I cannot use my right to freedom of speech to deny your humanity or your dignity on the basis (for example) of your race racist speech is hate speech and, as such, it is not protected by the law. There is no right to be racist.

The same holds for those who wish to act in such a way as to disrupt the lawful activities of others (there is nothing illegal about playing snooker). And, again, the same holds too for those who wish to prevent others from watching a film. There is no right to be intolerant.

These are easy cases. Or, at least, they ought to be. But what if we change the facts slightly? What if a small group wishes to protest (peacefully) in the near vicinity of a large crowd who might be very annoyed at that protest. Can the police intervene on the protesters to ensure there is no public disorder?

This is close to what happened in Westminster on the day of the Kings Coronation. A small group of republicans wanted to protest against the monarchy at a time and in a place where tens of thousands of people were gathered to watch and to take part in the coronation celebrations. The police prevented the protest, by arresting the would-be protesters and detaining them in police custody. Where they right to do so?

Read more:Appearances are everything in politics - Yousafs optics are horrible

The police had every right to act as they did if they intervened to prevent a breach of the peace. No crime needs to be committed before the police may exercise preventive powers to avoid a breach of the peace. But two conditions must be met for such police action to be lawful. First, officers must believe there will be an imminent breach of the peace and, secondly, this belief must be reasonable. If the police act too soon, or exercise their preventive powers disproportionately, they will be acting unlawfully.

The facts of what happened at the Coronation would appear to indicate that the police suspected a number of the protesters were seeking to act disruptively by, for example, locking themselves on to obstructions which could have interfered with the Coronation procession. Even if the police turn out to be wrong about that, arrests would still be lawful as long as the officers at the scene reasonably suspected an offence may be about to be committed. The police do not have to wait for an offence actually to be committed before making an arrest. Far better to prevent crime than to wait for the harm to be done and only then to act in response.

Given the range of disruptive activity protesters of various stripes have engaged in of late in Britain, it is understandable that the police would be nervous and hyper-vigilant that such tactics should under no circumstances be permitted to disrupt a spectacle as important as the coronation. There are, no doubt, lessons for the police to learn but so, too, are there lessons for protesters. There is no right to seek to disrupt the lawful activities of others. If public protest were carried out in compliance with this basic principle, and not in violation of it, we would all be a great deal better off, police and protesters alike.

Adam Tomkins is the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow School of Law. He was a Conservative MSP for the Glasgow region from 2016 to 2021.

Read more:
Adam Tomkins: You have the right to free speech, but not to disrupt ... - HeraldScotland

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) Lawyers in a First Amendment lawsuit that pits a New Hampshire bakery owner against a town zoning ordinance over a large painting of doughnuts and other pastries are hoping that a judge can resolve the matter after voters didnt.

Unfortunately the saga isnt over yet, bakery owner Sean Young said.

Both sides agree that they will have to litigate this controversy, according to a joint statement filed late Wednesday in federal court.

Last year, high school art students covered the big blank wall above Leavitts Country Bakery in Conway with a painting of the sun shining over a mountain range made of sprinkle-covered chocolate and strawberry doughnuts, a blueberry muffin, a cinnamon roll and other pastries.

But the town zoning board decided that the painting was not so much art as advertising, and so could not remain as is because of its size. At about 90 square feet (8.6 square meters), its four times bigger than the local sign code allows.

Faced with modifying or removing the mural, or possibly dealing with fines and criminal charges, Young sued in January, saying the town is violating his freedom of speech rights.

The painting could stay right where it is if it showed actual mountains, instead of pastries suggesting mountains, or if the building wasnt a bakery.

Both sides agreed in February to pause court proceedings and any potential fines or charges pending a vote on a revised sign code definition that would allow the painting to stay. But that failed to pass in town elections in April. The local newspaper suggested the residents generally liked the painting, but that the proposed definition changes would only further complicate enforcement.

Lawyers met last week.

The town articulated that it continued to view the painted panels affixed to a portion of the Leavitts facade as a sign prohibited by the sign code. As such, there remains a live controversy between the parties that requires this courts attention, Wednesdays statement said.

The town will have until July 21 to formally respond to Youngs lawsuit and then both sides will meet by Aug. 4 to submit a report to the judge, according to the joint statement. Both sides continue to believe there will likely be few if any contested issues of material fact, it said.

Young, who is being represented by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, asked for $1 in damages.

Continued here:
Doughnut painting dispute between bakery, town in free speech ... - The Associated Press

Jim Tucker is a journalist and writer based in New Plymouth.

OPINION: Am I breaking the law by writing this column, which is about the Dr Peter Canaday case?

If you've been following its journey through the courts, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Canaday is accused of breaching medical standards by raising doubts about Covid-19 vaccination at a time in mid-2021 when government efforts to protect the nation were at wavering heights.

A US-trained doctor who moved here in 2007 and became a radiologist, he was invited by prominent anti-government group Voices for Freedom to speak at its public forums.

READ MORE:* Doctor fined $30,000 for accessing friends and acquaintances' medical records* Employers need to take a sensitive and nuanced approach to vaccination* Covid-19: Vaccine mandates for health and education workers are here, but has the law got the balance right?

Late last year, the NZ Medical Council reacted to complaints about Canaday by banning him from medical practice while it investigated. He faced up to three years prevented from making a living from medicine.

Over February and March, Canaday appealed his suspension at court hearings in Wellington and won. The main case against him has just been heard in New Plymouth before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (decision reserved).

Naturally, my main interest lies in the impact all that will have on freedom of expression, a law that affects my right to make a living as a journalist.

Partly, it exists within the country's nearest thing to a constitution, the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, whose Section 14 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."

LISA BURD/Stuff

Columnist Jim Tucker says laws around freedom of expression affect his right to make a living as a journalist.

Looks firm enough, doesn't it. But as with most things legal, it's not that simple.

After then-Minister of Justice Sir Geoffrey Palmer steered the Act through Parliament back in the late 80s, he accepted it would take time before becoming what lawyers called "supreme law".

If that happened, relevant court cases would need to consider its power alongside any other law. As the years and cases have unfolded over the past 33 years, the Bill of Rights Act has undoubtedly grown in significance.

What we are about to see with Canaday is whether it has reached a similar status as that enjoyed by the US Constitution, which partially inspired Palmer when he worked there.

If it has, Canaday has a good chance of winning his case. The prosecution's arguments - about him, a medical practitioner, spouting ill-conceived ideas that might sway the undecided about vaccination - would be trumped.

But I doubt that will happen in the way every journalist would like and establish absolute press freedom.

It never can for the good reason freedom of expression is like defamation: it depends on the currency of what's being said.

If you read our defamation law you'll see it sticks to outlining processes to be followed when someone alleges someone else has said damaging things about them. It doesn't have a list of supposedly damaging words.

No such thing could function for long because the meanings of words evolve at a faster rate than any legislative process can match.

Take the word "gay".

In the so-called "roaring 20s" of last century it described people who went out a lot or had an outgoing manner. Later that century, it was adopted by the homosexual law reform community as a label of defiance. Now, it's a casual personal description that (mostly) carries no offence.

While some currently defamatory words have long sustained their clear intent to abuse, there is no guarantee that victims won't form a movement to normalise them.

Those involved in the Canaday case have encountered something similar the rapidly evolving body of knowledge and meanings that sprang up around Covid-19.

The entire scientific and medical world applied itself to finding protection and cure in an unprecedentedly short time. Vaccines had never before been adopted for public use without much longer trialling.

The vaccination effort has been commendably effective, but nobody can guarantee absolute safety. Over time, cases of bad reactions, even death, have emerged.

Most of us are all too keen to take a punt on the vaccines because we trust the majority medical opinion. That's the fundamental nature of modern life.

Does that mean people like Dr Canaday should not be allowed to express a contrary view, though?

Not in my book. Much of my work has been predicated on analysing minority opinions. Which doesn't mean I share them, by the way.

British philosopher Sir Karl Popper argued a scientific theory's validity lasts only until another disproves it. That lends gravitas to some attempts to disprove. The challenge is deciding which ones.

Jim Tucker is a journalist and writer based in New Plymouth.

See more here:
A test for the strength of New Zealand's free speech laws - Stuff