Daily Archives: October 16, 2023

The Undergraduate Senate (UGS) responded to student concerns over a lack of clarity in the Universitys free speech policies during its meeting Wednesday.Residential and Dining Enterprises leadership shared with the Senate that 9-inch plates would return following student criticism.

The Stanford American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) advocated for expansions to free speech on campus during the meeting.

Stanfords campus disruption policies state that it is a violation to prevent or disrupt the effective carrying out of a University function or approved activity. Penalties for violations of the policy range in severity the nature of the offense and the students prior record are considered with varying weights.

The issue with this is that protestors and activists have no knowledge of the risk theyre taking when theyre protesting and that imprecise language can be applied in any way that the University sees fit, said Diego Maglione 25, who is a member of Stanford ACLU.

White Plaza is the one of the few places on campus where protesting or chalking is allowed with prior approval. Only registered student organizations and University departments are eligible to display banners.

Maglione said this limits the voices of individuals.

ACLU leadership raised the University of California, Berkeley policies as a contrast and said they were less restrictive of individuals access to freedom of speech.

Senator Dawn Royster 26 said she intends to work on a resolution to expand free speech on campus, with a focus on White Plazas current restrictions.

I am going to be looking forward to working with you guys and ACLU, Royster said.

Maglione said the ACLU plans to send a list of demands to the Faculty Senate. Demands would include Time-Place-Manner restrictions, that would clarify the locations on campus where free speech is allowed.

ACLU will also ask to expand free speech zones to elsewhere on campus and allow banners from individuals and non-organizations. They also demanded a clarification on the punishments for violating these policies. The ACLU called on the University to rework the webpage to be more accessible and resemble UC Berkeleys website.

UGS also spoke with two R&DE members, Eric Montell and Jocelyn Breeland, about increasing communication between students and R&DE staffers.

Montell said 9-inch plates will return in about two weeks, after students expressed frustration regarding decreased plate size in dining halls across campus. R&DE had switched to an 8-inch plate to reduce compost waste, Montell said.

R&DE also announced that Chun Yang Tea, a Taiwanese boba operator in the Bay Area, will be opening in two weeks at Forbes cafe. This is Stanfords first authentic boba concept, Montell said.

According to Montell, R&DE was working on another special location with a rotation of some Southeast Asian countries in Gerhard.

UGS closed their meeting with small changes to a joint resolution on the future of affirmative action at Stanford. Senate co-chair Diego Kagurabadza 25 will meet with the Faculty Senate chair Thursday to discuss how to present the resolution to them.

I know its asking a lot, Kagurabadza said. This resolution is four pages. Its a lot of comprehensive policy recommendations.

But I think its because the moment is now. These discussions have been happening for decades and I think theres no better opportunity than the one thats present itself today to actually affect change, Kagurabadza said.

See more here:
UGS responds to free speech concerns on campus - The Stanford Daily

The First Amendment, academic freedom and free speech were the menu over lunchtime on Oct. 5, when the UCIs Year of Free Speech Kickoff Event encouraged the UCI community to seek opportunities to engage in thoughtful discussions throughout the year to better understand the concepts and create space for meaningful dialogue.

I have learned that the meaning of free speech and academic freedom is not self-evident to most people, said UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman, who is a scholar on the topic. Its no ones fault that there is a lack of basic understanding, because these values are not intuitive. They must be taught and reflected on, discussed and debated not just by experts, but by the entire university community, since we all have an obligation to create and maintain the norms and values that are central to our mission.

The bulk of the event was a panel moderated byVice Chancellor for Student Affairs Willie Banksand included discussion among Jun Jang, president of the Associated Students of UCI, Tiffany Lopez, dean of the Claire Trevor School of the Arts, and Megan Enciso, director of student affairs at the Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing. Banks asked them each three questions:

Why is free speech expression important to you?

Jang shared that free speech governs how we can express ourselves, from day-to-day interactions to how we protest and demonstrate.

Students will always be tied to the free speech movement, he said. It began at Berkeley, so UC has always been at the forefront.

Lopez said that, creative expression is the lighthouse of everything we do at Claire Trevor. Artmaking gives us the space to process whats going on.

To support the notion that universities bring free speech into the community, she shared how UCI does that through the hundreds of events produced each year that share multiple perspectives of stories, which teaches more than one way to live in the world.

Enciso remarked that the diversity of thought and opinion that comes with higher education is critical.

As a staffer, I interact with both students and faculty and learned that we must recognize our own privilege or authority in some spaces so that other people can feel like they can speak up. We can open the space to others to feel safe to say what they want to say.

The second question allowed each speaker to address how their individual personal experiences shaped their views on expression and free speech. Lopez shared her experience as a first-generation student and how college and through art, she found a space for vision and voice. Enciso spoke about the many layers of each persons identity and how we present multiple identities to the world, stressing to be aware of the identities we bring to the table so that others can feel welcome to speak up. Jang promoted the UCIs Asian American Studies Department for helping students define their voice, noting that freedom of speech historically hasnt been the same for everyone.

The third question asked the panel what they hope to see from the Year of Free Speech. There was agreement that a foundational understanding of free speech and academic freedom through educational opportunities is essential and that creating spaces for productive dialogue will be critical to accomplishing this.

The event ended with a presentation from Michelle Deutchman, executive director of the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, who addressed the legal component of free speech, stressing that the human component plus the law and how those work together makes free speech complex and challenging.

Deutchmans presentation engaged with viewers via live polls throughout asking questions such as, what freedoms are protected by the first amendment? and who has ever participated in a protest?

She addressed hate speech, how freedom of speech and academic freedom differ and how protected speech is regulated through various types of forums.

The event culminated with a lively exchange between Deutchman and Gillman addressing some of the questions that were submitted by viewers in advance, such as putting up items in dorm windows, whether malls are public forums, addressing whether professors can dock points if a student does not agree with the professors viewpoint, and incitement to violence or illegal activity.

The sentiment of the kickoff event was summed up by a quote from former UC President Clark Kerr: The university is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas.

If you want to learn more about supporting this or other activities at UCI, please visit the Brilliant Future website athttps://brilliantfuture.uci.edu. Publicly launched on Oct. 4, 2019, the Brilliant Future campaign aims to raise awareness and support for UCI. By engaging 75,000 alumni andgarnering $2 billion in philanthropic investment, UCI seeks to reach new heights of excellence instudent success, health and wellness, research and more.

See the original post:
UCI Year of Free Speech kicks off with virtual event - UCI News

Book Cover of A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In Modern India

On 11 August 2023, the Government of India proposed a new draft of the criminal code of India. Since coming into the public domain, the said draft has sparked heated debate and controversy. According to the government version, the proposed draft would overhaul the criminal codes drafted and enacted by the colonial rule of the British, which, in turn, would be a significant step in the direction of decolonization. However, the critics of the proposed draft have proffered the argument that behind the veneer of decolonisation, the government is not just retaining the laws, but has made it even more egregious.

Though there are many vantage points from which the claim of decolonization could be challenged; however, discussion pertaining to the legal and political life of sedition law in India would bring out the intent of the government more prominently.

Among all the colonial laws in India, sedition law has been perhaps a subject of great controversy since its enactment in 1872. any scholarly works have studied the sedition law, which includes looking at it from a lawyers perspective as well as political philosophy ((I think Anushka Singhs book reference would suffice).; analysing whether it enables free speech or not.

However, Rohan J Alvas A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In Modern India doesnt just add to the existing literature on the intersection of free speech and sedition law, but makes two interesting points, which I shall engage with subsequently.

Rohan J Alvas book is divided into 14 chapters covering the journey of sedition law from colonial to post-colonial India, and capturing its different iterations. The journey is divided into three timelines: the colonial period, the period of Constitution-making, and the post-colonial period ( Constitutional democracy). The book is a well-grounded account of the history of free speech jurisprudence in India while keeping sedition at the heart of the discussion. This book offers a technical aspect of the history of sedition law and offers a compelling case as to why section 124A should go away. The compelling case is made through the two separate yet related arguments. First, that sedition violates Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and does not fulfil the criteria enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Second, that sedition does not sit well with democratic principles.

The author begins the book with a harsh remark on the absurdity of achieving uniformity under the guise of modernising existing criminal justice systems, especially given that the English criminal justice system, which was launched in Britain, could now execute people for minor offences.

Sedition in its etymological sense can be linked to the Latin word sedition, which means riot. However, in India, the term sedition did not necessarily refer to rioting and could instead be applied to simple criticism of the government. Alva points out that the vague term disaffection in the provision had no clear definition, example, or standard punishment; instead, one could receive a life sentence or a three-year sentence. Unlike in England, sedition in India could be used even for mere criticism against the authority. The interpretation of the word disaffection in the cases of Queen-Empress vs Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors (1891), Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak( 1908), and Queen-Empress vs Amba Prasad (1897) strengthened the clause. It was interpreted in varied degrees, ranging from hatred, contempt, and ill-will toward the government to defection and it also included disloyalty towards the government

The need to suppress dissent was seen as sine qua non for the Crowns survival in India. Though the sedition was left out of the first draft of the IPC in 1860, however, in the wake of the Wahabai movement, it was added in 1870 as a response to deal with it. The goal, in essence, was to prevent any dissatisfaction.

With the establishment of the Federal Court in the 1930s, a new iteration of what constituted sedition was rendered by the court. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor (1939), The Federal Court established a precedent by restricting sedition to incitement of public disorder. However, in Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao(1947), the Privy Council decided that simple instigation of animosity toward the government was sufficient to warrant a trial. The Councils judgement would result in fodder for resurrecting sedition in India, supplemented by restrictions on Fundamental Rights. The author then goes into detail about the debates in the Constituent Assembly about free speech and sedition. Somnath Lihari (a communist and trade unionist from Bengal) recommended a revision to the sedition statute. In the argument over civil liberties, an enraged Lahiri stated Many fundamental rights have been framed from the point of view of a police constable

After a lengthy debate about free speech and sedition in India. It was K.M Munshis opinion that was endorsed by B.R Ambedkar, and therefore on the day India became a republic, sedition was no longer a constraint on free speech under the constitution.

Sedition and post-colonial India

Although it appears that sedition was removed from the restrictions on free speech enshrined under the Constitution, the law was still in use. Parliament had not scrapped the sedition from the IPC. The debate around sedition soon entered the domain of the judiciary. In Ramesh Thapar v. The State of Madras and Brijbhushan v. State of Delhi cases Court gave importance to the freedom of speech.

In response to the ruling of these two judgements, the first amendment was proposed. The amendment added the words Public order and relations with friendly states into article 19(2). However the word reasonable was added as a prefix to protect the freedom of speech and expression from the restrictions.

Alva also discusses that J.L. Nehru was cautious of the fact that his stand should not be interpreted in defence of laws like sedition. Nehru considered sedition as highly objectionable, obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons. He also stated that public order had no relevance.

It was in the year 1958 when the first major constitutional challenge arose against the sedition in the Ram Nadan case. In this case, the court relied on Nehrus speech and held that sedition was not part of public order. Within the span of four years, the judgement was overturned in Kedarnath.

Alva then goes on to talk about the famous case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962). This was the first conviction under the sedition law of independent India. Alva argues that this sedition law was revived under the pretext of public order. In addition to misinterpreting public order and public disorder, the court done the hat of the legislator and interpreted sedition in a way that was neither in accordance with the wishes of Parliament nor consistent with free speech. Additionally, the bench broke with the Romesh Thappar norm of a broader bench. In 1963, the 16th Constitutional Amendment inserted a new restriction to freedom of speech and expression, namely, sovereignty and integrity. It led to the enactment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA in 1967.

Alva believes it is incorrect to question the constitutionality of sedition merely in terms of how it is used in the penal law. Since the sedition provision would still be in effect under the UAPA (under section 2(1)(o)(iii)), he claims that the current trial is a path to a pyrrhic victory

Contextualising the underlying themes

Exception Becoming Rule

Carl Schmitt famously says in his work, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.

When we look at the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution, we can see that it enshrines and envisions various rights for citizens and non-citizens. However, simultaneously it places limitations on those rights. Article 19(1) enshrines the right to freedom of speech and expression, which is subject to a number of restrictions outlined in Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution.

In chapter four The Many Lives of the Prince of the book under review, Alva while discussing the journey of sedition law in the Constituent assembly debates makes a similar type of argument. He says that the law attained many lives during its gestation period in the constituent assembly. He argues that, while addressing the issue of the freedom of speech and expression, the deliberation of the Drafting Committee seemed to focus almost exclusively on fine-tuning the kinds of restrictions that should be imposed on speech.

He says Critics were worried that civil rights ( enumerated in the draft article 13) were riddled with so many exceptions that the exceptions have eaten up the rights altogether. He further argues that many in the Assembly did find Dr Ambedkars explanation for the litany of respections on speech a bitter pill to swallow. Quoting K.T Shah, Dr. Ambedkars colleague from the advisory committee that Civil rights being overrun with exception.

So, if we try to understand Schmitts rule and exception concept in the context of freedom of speech under Article 19. It could be said that the exception given under Article 19(2) is the rule as it decides what not to say.

Restriction on free speech in Liberal Democracy

Throughout the book, the author considers the vitality of democracy and the necessity of saving it. He argues that preserving democracy is essential to ensuring that civil liberties and rights are enjoyed by people. The author on various occasions in the book talks about the importance of freedom of speech especially political speech in the democratic sphere. However, my close reading of those lines leads me to believe that the author does not clarify which type of democracy he is referring to. In the ninth Chapter of the book under review Triumph of Democracy, the author gives examples of the US and U.K. and seems to point towards liberal democracy and how these liberal democratic jurisdictions treat political speech. He argues that, both the U.K. and the U.S. have scrapped the law of sedition and has shown his optimism in the liberal democracies. He argues that since, both these liberal democracies have abolished the sedition law, India being a liberal democracy should follow them and scrap the law.

It is also pertinent to mention that a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in S.G Vombatkere V .Union of India (2022) dealing with the petition challenging the constitutionality of sedition law given under section 124-A of IPC, 1860, had directed that all pending trails, appeals and proceedings concerning the charges framed under the said section be kept in abeyance. In this case, the petitioners made a similar kind of argument as given in the preceding paragraph. Petitioners did raise the issue of free speech, however, another reasoning provided by the petitioners was that the many liberal democracies such as the U.K., U.S. and Australia have already abolished the law. So, India being a liberal democracy should follow the same path and repeal the law.

In a way, both petitioners and author consider liberal democracies as a source of optimism. However, it is worth noting that the restrictions on political speech are still prevalent in liberal democracies and while the laws of sedition have been repealed in Western countries, anti-terrorism laws continue to empower the state to penalise citizens for what would earlier be considered as Seditious speech albeit without using the word sedition.

Similarly in the context of India, Anushka Singhs work that the anti-terror legislation contains provisions to restrict free speech which is seditious in nature. For example, the UAPA 1967(as amended in 2004, 2008, 2019) penalises an act that intends to cause disaffection against the Government of India. She further argues that Indian Liberal democracy provides an example in which sedition and terrorism are both embedded in languages with anti-national connotations. So, which means even if sedition goes away, the essence of the sedition as the offence remains. This poses a serious question on how liberal democracies treat political speech and can liberal democracies do without laws such as Sedition, UAPA and Preventive Laws.

Despite my criticism on the issue of liberal democracy, I still strongly believe that this book is one of the major contributions to sedition in India. What distinguishes this book is its technical treatment of sedition in the Indian setting. In contrast to other contributions, this one maintains sedition at the forefront when considering free expression in contemporary India. The authors distinctive writing style is something I appreciate. This book is fascinating to read not just because of its arguments and extensive research, but also because of its prose and the authors excellent choice of chapter headings and chapterization.

Saqib Rasool is a LLM student at Azim Premji University

See more here:
Book review: A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In ... - Maktoob media

Editors Note: Some of the names in this story have been changed to protect the identities of the individuals involved. The Daily Collegian has verified through fact checking these individuals exist.

The Penn State chapter of Turning Point USA and Young Americans for Freedom at Penn State held a Free Speech Rally with Riley Gaines, a former Division I swimmer who speaks out against transgender athletes' inclusion in women's sports.

A counter protest was scheduled at the same time on the HUB-Robeson Center Lawn.

Jack Kentner, one of the main organizers of the event and the president of Young Americans for Freedom at Penn State, said this was a collaborative effort with Turning Point to ensure Gaines would speak on campus.

We learned that Riley Gaines was going to be speaking with TP USA, and they ran into some trouble, Kentner, a fourth-year studying political science and film production, said. So we decided to collab since we share similar grievances to hold a freedom of speech rally at the HUB lawn, a freedom of speech zone.

Kentner said he and his organization tried to promote the event through word of mouth and among their own circles.

According to Kentner, the reasons behind why he believes its important to bring speakers such as Riley Gaines to campus are two-fold.

The first is to highlight the inherent unfairness of trans women being in women's sports because the distinction between women's and men's sports doesn't just stop at sex, Kentner said. We're collaborating to show that freedom of speech is not optional on campus, it furthers intellectual discourse.

Kentner said he hopes that events like this will improve Penn States recent freedom of speech below ranking, which was at 189 or below average in comparison to other universities.

According to Kentner, there needs to be a space where women can break records without competing against transgender women.

I believe that a third division can be made that's more inclusive to trans individuals, that doesn't come at the expense of biological women, Kentner said. I do believe, to any trans advocates out there, that thats a more pragmatic solution.

Luke Gosnell, a protester, said when he arrived at the event, he noticed two students being detained by police. These two students were detained for disorderly conduct, according to police.

Right when I got here, the university was arresting multiple students for seemingly meaningless interactions that happen on this campus all the time, and that is something I am very upset about, Gosnell, a second-year studying political science, said.

Gosnell said he arrived to protest the demonstration set up by the far right people here."

We shouldnt be allowing this sort of hate speech on campus, Gosnell said.

Henry Han, another protester, said he was at the scene to support a group he was formerly in, the United Socialists at Penn State University.

I feel like this is a publicity stunt, Han, a third-year studying computer science, said. From what I heard, the speaker didnt properly confirm the scheduling with Penn State and is now blaming Penn State for kicking her out.

Eamon Foley, one of the event organizers and the president of Turning Point at Penn State, said he takes a little responsibility for the initially scheduled event falling through.

In response, Foley, a third-year studying economics, said he chose to have the event at the HUB-Robeson Center lawn.

He said Turning Point at Penn State also tried to organize the event at the Flex Theater in the HUB but Foley said university policy requires 30 academic days in advance to start the contract process when inviting public speakers.

Initially, Turning Point USA, the student group bringing Ms. Gaines to campus, soughtindoor space, but did not meet the deadline forsubmitting the required reservation documents an expectation upheld for any recognized student organization at Penn State, according to a university statement.

At the event, both Turning Point and Young Americans for Freedom set up their table at the top of the HUB lawn where Riley Gaines was set to speak.

As part of their demonstration they brought a large free speech beach ball where Foley said people could write anything they wanted. There was also a baseball pitching net, where participants could throw a pitch.

What people can do is they can take one of these baseballs, throw it into the net (and) record the throwing speed, Foley said. It's supposed to show the distinction between the athletic advantage between men and women.

Around 4:15 p.m., protesters started to gather on the HUB lawn and about 13 protesters stood near the Turning Point and Young Americans for Freedom table holding a large transgender pride flag.

One of the protesters, Winter Parts, took part in the game and pitched a ball onto the net.

After throwing the pitch, Parts, a graduate student studying astronomy, went to the sign and wrote nonbinary in the middle of it and recorded their time.

Kathy, who wished to remain anonymous, shared her thoughts about how inviting speakers such as Gaines affects campus life, especially for marginalized communities.

I just feel that no certain community should feel as though they are uncomfortable in a space that should be welcome to all people, Kathy said.

Protesters continued to gather until approximately 4:30 p.m., when Turning Point moved in front of the Biobehavioral Health Building.

Once Turning Point and Young Americans relocated, protestors reconvened and chanted trans lives matter and no home for transphobia.

Riley Gaines walked toward the crowd and began her speech while protesters chanted cant swim at Gaines, in reference to her career as an NCAA Division I swimmer.

First and foremost, I think it is important to speak at universities because we need to engage (with) people my age to understand the truth, Gaines said.

Gaines also addressed the protestors chanting, trans lives matter during her speech.

They entirely have the right to protest just as I have the right to stand here and advocate what Im advocating for, Gaines said.

Gaines said she believes the protestors were emotionally driven and there is no science, logic or reason as to what they are advocating for.

Later in the evening, Gaines spoke to a smaller crowd in the Wagner Building and said a year and a half ago, there wouldn't have been any people there to support because they'd be terrified of putting their face to it or whatever that might be.

I think, people, not just female athletes, parents, medical professionals, pastors, even a lot of people are waking up to the injustice of what's happening, Gaines said.

Gaines shared to the crowd this issue was about our privacy and she makes the argument for a woman but a lot of times, people are not willing to accept (it).

But what I'm finding is among our generation, among the general public of our generation, we know this has gone too far, Gaines said. (Im) just trying to encourage and inspire and embolden people to know that they can speak the truth.

MORE NEWS COVERAGE

Penn State Homecoming hosted its Past to Present event in Heritage Hall in the HUB-Robeson

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

Read the original here:
Protestors, supporters gather on HUB lawn for Riley Gaines' Free ... - The Daily Collegian