Category Archives: Free Speech

Students at Middlebury College shouted down Charles Murray rather than listen to hiscontroversial ideas when he came to speak at their campus in MarchLisa RathkeAP

Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School and the Sol and Lillian Goldman Professor of Law

In this, the summer of our discontent, many college presidents are breathing a sigh of relief that they made it through a politically fraught spring without their campuses erupting. Nobody wants to be the next Middlebury or Claremont McKenna , where demonstrations disrupted controversial speakers.

Law deans, in sharp contrast, have reason to be cheery. Their campuses have been largely exempt from ugly free-speech incidents like these. Charles Murray , the controversial scholar whose speech drew violent reaction at Middlebury, has spoken at Yale Law School twice during the past few years. Students and faculty engaged with him, and students held a separate event to protest and discuss the implications of his work. But he spoke without interruption. That's exactly how a university is supposed to work.

There may be a reason why law students haven't resorted to the extreme tactics we've seen on college campuses: their training. Law school conditions you to know the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. That's why lawyers know how to go to war without turning the other side into an enemy. People love to tell lawyer jokes, but maybe it's time for the rest of the country to take a lesson from the profession they love to hate.

In law schools we don't just teach our students to know the weaknesses in their own arguments. We demand that they imaginatively and sympathetically reconstruct the best argument on the other side. From the first day in class, students must defend an argument they don't believe or pretend to be a judge whose values they dislike. Every professor I know assigns cases that vindicate the side she favors--then brutally dismantles their reasoning. Lawyers learn to see the world as their opponents do, and nothing is more humbling than that. We teach students that even the grandest principles have limits. The day you really become a lawyer is the day you realize that the law doesn't--and shouldn't--match everything you believe. The litigation system is premised on the hope that truth will emerge if we ensure that everyone has a chance to have her say.

The rituals of respect shown inside and outside the courtroom come from this training. Those rituals are so powerful that they can trump even the deepest divides. As Kenneth Mack recounts in his book Representing the Race: The Creation of the Civil Rights Lawyer, Thurgood Marshall was able to do things in court that a black man could never do in any other forum, like subjecting a white woman to cross-examination. Marshall was able to practice even in small, segregated towns in rural Maryland during the early days of the civil rights movement. The reason was simple: despite their bigotry, members of the Maryland bar had decided to treat Marshall as a lawyer, first and foremost.

The values in which my profession is steeped were once values in politics as well. In 2008, I was one of the lawyers in the Obama campaign's "boiler room." Buses delivered the staff to Grant Park to watch Barack Obama accept the win. We arrived just as Senator John McCain was giving his concession speech on the Jumbotrons. The election was hard fought, and there was no love lost between the two campaigns. But even as the crowd around us jeered, the Obama staff practically stood at attention. It was like watching an army surrender--one of the most moving experiences I remember from that extraordinary campaign.

We need to return to what were once core values in politics and what remain core values in my profession. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a war over values. We should fight, and fight hard, for what we believe. But even as we do battle, it's crucial to recognize the best in the other side and the worst in your own.

Follow this link:
Dean of Yale Law School: Campus Free Speech Is Not Up for Debate - TIME

Three University of Texas at Austin professors filed a lawsuit claiming that letting people carry firearms on their campus would have a chilling effect on speech. Last week, District Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the suit claiming the professors could present "no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" and that their fears rest on "mere conjecture." Although it's certainly refreshing to see professors using First Amendment justifications with such vigor, it's even better that Yeakel dismissed their ludicrous arguments and protected campus carry.

In 2015, the Texas legislature strengthened their commitment to gun rights at public universities. Senate Bill 11, which came into effect in August 2016, permitted campus concealed carry in campus buildings within reasonable guidelines. Those guidelines vary from school to school. At UT Austin, guns must stay out of sight, and individuals professors can choose to make "gun-free zones" in their offices, provided they post their rules clearly.

Professors Jennifer Lynn Glass (sociology), Lisa Moore (English), and Mia Carter (English) banded together and filed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the new law. One professor argued that the "possibility of the presence of concealed weapons in a classroom impedes my and other professors' ability to create a daring, intellectually active, mutually supportive, and engaged community of thinkers." Their reasoning centered around the idea that students will be unable to speak freelya First Amendment argumentin an environment where other students are armed.

But this logic posits that students will pull guns on each other when they hear ideas they disagree withan unlikely outcome. Even for controversial topics like abortion and, ironically, gun rights, it would be beyond the scope of reason to expect that a classroom conversation would become so heated that a student's life would be threatened.

Judge Yeakel drew on the reasoning in the 1972 free speech case Laird v. Tatum, which said that "Allegations of a subjective 'chill' are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm."

Yeakel then used the precedent of Laird, and lack of specific evidence, as grounds for dismissal: "Here, Plaintiffs ask the court to find standing based on their self-imposed censoring of classroom discussions caused by their fear of the possibility of illegal activity by persons not joined in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" He's right that there's no evidence that this law has caused harm in the way they claim. Unfortunately, Yeakel only addressed a small part of the professors' argumentthe speech-related points. They also brought up issues with equal protection and the law's vagueness, so it's likely that this issue won't be fully laid to rest.

On one hand, it's good that college professors are recognizing the value of creating environments for free speech to thrive in. On the other, this seems like a thinly veiled political move, and it's unlikely that opponents of campus carry laws will be quelled by this lawsuit's dismissal. Hopefully these professors remain committed to the First Amendment principles they hold so dear whenever they're threatened in a classroom environment. They're certainly right about one thing: exchanging ideas freely is the whole damn point of college.

See more here:
Judge: Campus Carry Doesn't Hurt Free Speech - Reason (blog)

Preece is retired. He lives on a farm in Botetourt County.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United gave corporations the same rights as American citizens by allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. The Supreme Court did this by defining money as free speech.

Does it make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy businesses as free speech when money as free speech buys votes with advertising and obligates leaders to serve the source of that money though contributions? Does it even make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy individual citizens as free speech when, again, money as free speech buys votes and politicians?

Doesnt money as free speech promote multiple votes for some citizens, and only one vote for others? Doesnt money as free speech defeat the essential idea of democracy? Even if such nonsense made sense, does it make sense for a corporate officer to vote once as himself and a second time as the corporation? Isnt that one man, two votes?

When a voter receives most of the information about a candidate from advertising that has been paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals, such a voters judgement is significantly influenced. The question arises: Does that citizens vote then come from his own judgment or from the intent of the person that paid for the advertising?

When a politician receives most of the money that gets him elected from a particular source, doesnt that obligate him to favor that particular source in his future political judgment? The question arises: Do the future decisions of the politician originate from his authentic judgment or from judgment favoring the money that got him elected?

Amendments to change the U.S. Constitution are provided for in article V of the constitution. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to our countrys living document are called the Bill of Rights. A citizens right to free speech was established by the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It was intended to protect human beings from the power of the state so that they could speak freely, not so that powerful moneyed interest could be allowed to rule the country like kings and oligarchs.

Thanks to an amendment to the Constitution, America has no slaves. Thanks to another amendment, women get to vote. Thanks to yet another amendment, we get to elect our state senators; and we even get to share an alcoholic drink with a friend if we like.

As American citizens, we have the obligation to advance amendments to our Constitution when we perceive that current laws of the land make no sense. Corporations as citizens makes no sense. We the people need to act to change this. The goal of each American citizen, Republican, Democrat or independent, should be to shift the power of citizenship and the vote back to the people of the United States, and that means away from corporations and big money.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, Should I, an ordinary American citizen, simply accept the present reality that I am not rich enough to deserve the right to free speech or the right to vote? Or should I feel enraged that the ideals of American democracy have been perverted?

Continue reading here:
Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? - Roanoke Times

Kevin DrumJul. 13, 2017 2:00 PM

We have news from National Review today:

National Review Institute is launching the Center for Unalienable Rights, created to be the home of free-speech warrior David French, whose new podcast, The Liberty Files, is a must-listen for anyone who cares deeply about combating the leftist assault on the First Amendment, whether on our campuses or in any other place patrolled by the ruthless Thought Police.

.The Left wants to gag, marginalize, intimidate, shut up, and, if they can, even criminalize conservatives for what we think and what we say. We intend to fight the intolligentsia, in a more focused way. We intend to beat the determined enemies of our unalienable rights. Help us prevail.

You are expecting me to mock this, arent you? But Im not! Instead I have a serious suggestion.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberals who are concerned about this stuff too. The safe spaces/microaggressions/hecklers veto/trigger warnings movement is not entirely beloved on the left. If this project were toned down and aimed at free speech repression on both sides, it might actually attract some bipartisan support.

I know thats not really plausible these days. I just felt like mentioning it.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

See original here:
Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior - Mother Jones

Inside Higher Ed

Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? Inside Higher Ed It is clear that lawmakers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are attempting to achieve politically neutral college campuses in the name of protecting free speech -- campuses where all speech is considered equally valuable, no matter how morally repugnant, ...

Follow this link:
Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? - Inside Higher Ed

A retired Air Force major filed the lawsuit against Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Kitsap County Prosecutor Tina Robinson in U.S. District Court on Tuesday.

A retired Air Force major is asking a federal court to declare Washington states cyberstalking law unconstitutional, saying hes been threatened with prosecution and up to a year in jail for repeatedly making online posts that criticize a community activist.

Richard Lee Rynearson III filed the lawsuit against Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Kitsap County Prosecutor Tina Robinson in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. Its within his free-speech rights to publish such criticism, he said.

One of his attorneys is Eugene Volokh, a University of California, Los Angeles, law professor who in May challenged a similar law in Ohio.

How can it possibly be constitutional to ban mean speech online? Volokh said. If someone is appalled by a local official and wants to embarrass them by posting things online, thats a crime?

Rynearson, of Bainbridge Island, has repeatedly written posts that criticize but dont threaten Clarence Moriwaki, who founded a memorial there to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He insists that those who condemn the internment should also strongly speak out against the governments indefinite detention powers in the war on terror, but that Moriwaki hasnt.

After Moriwaki obtained a temporary restraining order and filed a police report last spring, saying he was being harassed by incessant text messages and Facebook posts, investigators recommended that Rynearson be charged with cyberstalking. A deputy prosecutor in Kitsap County suggested in an email to Rynearsons lawyer that the office might file charges if his behavior continued, but he has not been charged.

He just wont leave me alone, Moriwaki said Wednesday. I told him to stop posting about me, to stop contacting me, and he wont. Hes a classic cyber bully.

Washingtons cyberstalking law, passed in 2004, makes it illegal to send electronic communications repeatedly or anonymously with an intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass someone whether the message is sent directly to the target or to someone else.

Representatives of the Washington Attorney Generals Office and the Kitsap County Prosecutors Office declined to comment.

Supporters of such laws say theyre needed to cut down on cyber bullying, but critics say the measures criminalize common online behavior, not to mention speech protected by the Constitution. Similar online harassment laws have been struck down in years past by state courts in New York and North Carolina, Volokh noted.

Rynearson wrote in a declaration filed in court that Moriwaki and the Bainbridge Island Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial had done good work to preserve the history of internment as a reminder for present-day debates about civil liberties in wartime.

But, he said, he eventually became disillusioned that Moriwaki had not criticized Democratic politicians who supported the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. That law had been interpreted as allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens in the fight against terrorism.

He repeatedly posted that criticism on Facebook pages maintained by Moriwaki and by others, in text messages to him, and even on a Facebook page he initially titled Clarence Moriwaki of Bainbridge Island, in which he wrote that Moriwaki is unfit to be the President or board member for our memorial. Some of the posts were made under the pseudonym Richard Lee.

He took the page down and has ceased criticizing Moriwaki in response to the temporary restraining order, he said in his declaration, but he would like to resume the online criticism.

See the original post here:
Lawsuit: Washington cyberstalking law violates free speech - The Seattle Times

Donald Trump Jr. walks offstage after Donald Trumps debate against Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on Sept. 26.

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Get ready for the latest defense for Donald Trump Jr.s actions: He had a First Amendment right to collude with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. This defense, which has been advanced by noted First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh and others, posits that he cannot be charged under campaign finance laws for soliciting a foreign contribution because seeking and providing such information would be protected political speech, or at least protected for an American to receive. Its a dangerous argument which fails to recognize the compelling interest promoted by Congresss ban on foreign contributions: specifically guarding American self-government against foreign intrusion.

Lets first start with the statute Trump Jr. may have violated. Federal law makes it a potentialcrime forany person to solicit (that is, expressly or impliedly ask for) the contribution of anything of value from a foreign citizen.

While we do not know enough to say that Trump Jr. should be charged with violating this statute, emailsreleased by Trump Jr. himself on Tuesday (as the New York Times was about to report on them) provide more than enough detail to merit an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. We know that Trump Jr. got an email from his friend stating that the Crown prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This high level and sensitive information was being presented as part of Russia and its governments support for Mr. Trump.

Trump Jr. replied almost immediately:If its what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

It seems obvious that I love it constitutes solicitation in this instance. And there is a very strong argument to be made that very high level and sensitive information coming from the government of Russia is a thing of value for purposes of federal campaign finance law. The Federal Election Commission has said that providing free polling information to a candidate is a thing of value. It has said that when Grover Norquists Americans for Tax Reformgave a list of conservative activists in 37 states to the BushCheney campaign in 2004, this was a thing of value which had to be reported by the campaign, even if the list was publicly posted on the groups website. It said that Canadian campaign literature which an American candidate wanted to borrow from in his own campaign is a thing of value, even if its value is nominal or difficult to ascertain. It said that opposition research provided by a political group to Republican candidates can count as an in-kind contribution. And a federal court, in the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, said that a thing of value need only have subjective value to the recipient.

In the case involving the Canadian campaign literature, the FEC said the solution was for the campaign to buy it at fair market value, not to take it for free. And in the case involving the polling data, the court distinguished between volunteering for a campaignwhich is OK, even for foreignersand providing things of value that the campaign would otherwise buy, including information.

So heres where the First Amendment argument comes in. Professor Volokh argues that applying the FEC statute against Trump for getting a Russian government oppo dump must violate Trump Jr.s First Amendment rights because otherwise it would prevent all campaigns from obtaining mere information from a foreign individual. What if foreign individuals came forward during the campaign with dirt on Trumps travails in Russia and gave it to the Clinton campaign? Would that violate the law? Could a campaign not even speak to a foreign individual?

If a law is substantially overbroad, Volokh argues, it could be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds against all people, including Trump Jr., even if a narrower lawfor example, against taking information from a foreign governmentcould pass constitutional muster.

Should it ever come down to a prosecution of Donald Trump Jr., I think courts wouldand shouldreject these arguments. One way to do so would be to read the statute more narrowly to proscribe actions like Trump Jr.s: campaigns taking compiled information for free that they would have paid significant value to receive from a foreign sourceor at least a foreign government.

Should it ever come down to a prosecution of Donald Trump Jr., I think courts would reject these arguments.

Campaign finance laws are usually justified on the grounds of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. But the laws barring foreign interference are different: They are about protecting self-government and the right of the American people themselves to decide who our elected officials and representatives are. As the FEC acknowledged in 2007, Congress passed and strengthened the foreign contribution ban with a broad scope out of a legitimate fear of interference in American electoral processes. It is a concern which has only been heightened by recent reports of Russian hacking into state voting and election systems in the 2016 campaign, as well as Russian proliferation of propaganda and Twitter botdriven fake news and the countrys hack of the Democratic National Committee.

Right after the Supreme Court decided the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, freeing corporations to spend money in elections independent of campaigns on the grounds that such independent spending cannot corrupt democracy, a Canadian lawyer living in New York named Benjamin Bluman brought a similar suit. He argued that his independent spending of 50 cents to make flyers and hand them out in Central Park in support of President Barack Obama should not be a crime because he could not corrupt the process.

A three-judge district court, in an opinion by conservative D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, roundly rejected the argument and affirmed the broad scope of the foreign contribution ban in Bluman v. FEC: It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process. The Supreme Court thought this result was so self-evident it summarily affirmed the lower court judgment withoutscheduling argument and without issuing a separate decision. That is how obvious the countrys interest is in preventing foreign influence over our elections.

To let someone off the hook who solicited very high level and sensitive information from a hostile government because there may be cases in which information from a foreign source does not raise the same danger to our national security and right of self-government is to turn the First Amendment into a tool to kill American democracy.

Put aside the incredulity Trump World would deserve if it pivots from saying there were no campaign contacts with the Russian government to acknowledging the contacts and saying they were just free speech. As a matter of protecting American democracy, the argument is pernicious and threatens the very core of what it means for we the people to decide who governs us.

Originally posted here:
Donald Trump Jr.'s free speech defense is as bogus as it sounds. - Slate Magazine

Posted: Jul. 13, 2017 12:01 am

NEWTON -- A handful of protesters stood on the Newton Green Wednesday afternoon to urge support of free speech on the internet as part of the Day of Action for Net Neutrality.

Similar movements were happening Wednesday at numerous locations throughout the U.S. and in several other nations, according to protester Wendi Goetz of Frelinghuysen. Goetz said the Newton group is speaking on behalf of protectourinternet.org.

Goetz -- one of a group of three or four persons at the event -- used a microphone to amplify her message, speaking up when drivers were stopped at the Spring Street intersection. Signs staked into the grass read, "Protect Our Internet" and "Democracy Not Corporatocracy."

Another protester, Aaron Hyndman of White Township who is a Democratic candidate for 24th District Assembly, described net neutrality as "the principle that the internet should be a place of free and open exchange of ideas without the corporations that own the tech infrastructure regulating or charging people extra for certain types of what should be free speech to go through." Goetz, more simply, called it "the First Amendment of the internet."

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that AT&T supported the day of action, but there are still concerns about the future of net neutrality due to the influence of other large tech companies. As an example, the protesters on the green referenced Ajit Pai, the former CEO of Verizon who is now the Federal Communications Commission's chairman.

"He's chairman of the FCC, and by weighing in (on net neutrality) like he is, he's just setting it up for big corporations," said protester Elizabeth Nelson of Newton.

Goetz said this type of behavior could be detrimental to internet users in the long run.

"These chairmen are all coming from the revolving door of industry lobbyists and into our regulatory positions," she said. "They're common carriers who have used up all their subsidies and taxpayer money to get their infrastructure built on our backs, and now they want us to pay more."

If net neutrality is repealed, Goetz said, another consequence would be slower internet speed. As someone who relied on the web to help bolster support for the United States' withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership which happened shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration Goetz is concerned about this drawback.

"I utilized the internet so people could know what I was talking about, could come join me, and we helped to flush the TPP," she said. "Fights like that, and fights for our freedom, will not be available to us if the internet is slow. Can you imagine being back in the 1990s with it reloading over and over again? No way."

Hyndman said the location of the protest was fitting given the Newton Green's history, calling it "a birthplace of democracy, of free speech and the First Amendment." He believes a repeal of net neutrality would jeopardize these three values for the sake of large corporations.

"People don't realize, because we take the internet for granted, how fundamental it is in facilitating free speech and getting us connected to all the information we need," Hyndman said. "If it becomes tiered and regulated in such a way that it puts profit over principled exchange of ideas, it's dangerous for democracy."

Follow this link:
Protesters urge support of free speech on internet - New Jersey Herald

Common Dreams

Citing Free Speech, Dissenters Sue Trump for Blocking Them on Twitter Common Dreams Following news of the Institute's letter to the White House, Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman argued that free speech rights don't exist on Twitter because the platform is a private company. "Trump's account is a stream of communication that's wholly ... US free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter usersReuters Free Speech Fans Sue Donald Trump for Blocking Them on TwitterGizmodo US Free-Speech Group Suing President Trump for Blocking Twitter UsersThe Source Variety -Adweek -Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard -DocumentCloud all 208 news articles »

Original post:
Citing Free Speech, Dissenters Sue Trump for Blocking Them on Twitter - Common Dreams

Ahmed Mansoor is a human rights defender from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who was arrested in March along with four other activists. Mansoor has allegedly been subjected to years of cyberattacks through surveillance software and tools sold to the UAE by European companies including FinFisher from Germany and the Italian HackingTeam. Mansoor, the recipient of the 2015 Martin Ennals Award, an annual prize for human rights defenders, remains imprisoned.

Unfortunately he is not alone. Many other cases, perhaps lesser known but just as important, highlight the great risks faced by human rights defenders and activists around the world. These activists are often imprisoned, harassed or forced to flee because of the critical role that intrusive technology plays in enabling such abuses. This is no longer an issue that can be ignored.

Technology's role

When we speak of freedom of expression today we have to also talk about technology. Much of modern journalism and activism happens online. Blogs, social media and collaborative platforms have enabled many to reach wider audiences and bring local issues to the attention of the global community. These tools also assist in more effectively organizing protest movements and in achieving change.

The internet is an enabler, but also a hindrance to free speech, Guarnieri says

What makes the internet such a powerful technology is that it is both an instrument of liberation and a tool of oppression. It is true that in the minds of most, the internet remains a force for good and a platform of endless economic opportunity. However, it is important that we remind the citizens of the world how pervasively and systematically that same internet enables censorship and surveillance against those in society who risk the most: journalists and human rights defenders.

The ability to monitor those who dare to speak truth to power is very appealing to those who are in power. Whether by directly persecuting people through the information collected, or indirectly by installing fear of ubiquitous control, surveillance is extremely effective at curbing dissent and hindering free expression.

Who's watching?

Unfortunatelycases such as Mansoor's are increasing as more and more surveillance technologies produced by European companies are ending up in the hands of repressive governments. The human rights community has long been demanding that surveillance vendors take issues like free expression seriously, but most companies continue with business as usual.

Human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor was arrested in March in the United Arab Emirates

Electronic surveillance depends on engineering to be developed and perhaps it is these engineers that would be receptive to a dialogue about the consequences of such tools. As technology becomes inherently political, it is necessary that technologists recognize the role they play in society through the products they build. In order to foster this, schools and universities need to educate the computer scientists of tomorrow on matters of ethics and society and equip them with the right tools to determine the global human rights impact of the technologies they develop.

Today some piece of code may significantly contribute to the ability of an entire population to express themselves freely and without fear. It is then up to engineers to decide whether the fruits of their labor will benefit autocrats or activists. As a technologist and an activist, I urge all engineers to exercise their skills with conscience, empathy and solidarity.

Claudio Guarnieri is a technologist and researcher at Amnesty International, a senior research fellow with Citizen Lab, University of Toronto, and the co-founder of Security Without Borders.You can follow him on Twitter @botherder.

This commentary is a part of DW'sFreedom of Speech Project which aims to highlight voices from around the world on the topics of freedom of expression and press freedom. You can also follow the project of Facebook.

Read the original:
Technology must 'foster, not hinder, free speech' - Deutsche Welle