Category Archives: Free Speech

A total of six colleges in North Carolina have recently earned the highest green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

East Carolina University (ECU), the latest addition to the list, earned its free speech rating following a controversial decision to allow conservative commentator Tomi Lahren to speak on campus in April.

"Shortly after I arrived on campus I realized that our free speech rights were limited to three areas."

According to FIREs press release, ECU joins 32 other colleges around the country with written policies that do not imperil student and faculty expression.

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte earned the same rating last week, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and North Carolina Central University both earned green light status in May, FIRE explained, noting that Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill previously earned FIREs highest rating for campus free speech.

[RELATED: Yale students agree that their campus restricts free speech]

Giovanni Triana, chairman of ECUs Turning Point USA chapter, said the push in favor of free speech began when students in his club decided it was time to take back their first amendment rights.

Shortly after I arrived on campus I realized that our free speech rights were limited to three areas on campus, and we had to ask for permission ahead of time just to use it, Triana told Campus Reform. Meanwhile, ECUs marching band made headlines for thinking it was okay for them to kneel during the national anthem.

While Triana condemned the marching bandspolitical statement, he acknowledged that free speech couldnt be restricted by the public schools policy.

After garnering the support of the Black Student Union, the Asian Student Association, chapters of Young Americans for Liberty, and the College Republicans, my group planned to protest the speech code. The only group that didnt join us was the chapter of the College Democrats, he said. Just days before the protest, however, the administration reached out to me and offered to diplomatically come to a solution to the issue.

[RELATED: Princeton students speak out against safe spaces]

Following the administrations pledge to support free speech on college campus, the university was criticised for planning to host the conservative firebrand Tomi Lahren. Despite the pressure to cancel the event, however, ECU allowed Lahren to come to campus and speak about millennial issues, including the importance of free speech.

With the support of the student senate, ECUs speech policyformerly titled Freedom of Expression Regulationhas also gone throughfive revisions, leading to a new policy called Assemblies and Public Addresses in Designated Public Forums.

At ECU we are committed to free speech and freedom of expression on our campus, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Virginia Hardy told FIRE. We want our students, faculty, staff and guests to feel comfortable exercising their rights and exploring their ideas. Allowing the opportunity for freedom of expression and civil discourse around differing views has always been, and continues to be, a mainstay of institutions of higher learning.

[RELATED: MAP: Growing number of states consider free speech bills]

Alongside the universitys internal revisions, some North Carolina lawmakers also spearheaded a campaign to implement free speech legislation on a state level.

In late June, the North Carolina state house successfully passedHB527 reaffirming the states commitment to restore and preserve campus free speech.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @willthethinker

See the original post:
Free speech sweeps through North Carolina campuses - Campus Reform

In a year when the First Amendment seems under threat from all sides, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon has emerged as Portland's most dogged and consistent defenders of free speechno matter who's talking or what they're saying.

"We think that the First Amendment rights are the cornerstone of all of our other rights," says ACLU spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong. "But it can be complicated because we often have strange bedfellows when we're talking about free speech."

Strange bedfellows indeed. The ACLU of Oregon chided Mayor Ted Wheeler for asking the federal government to revoke a permit allowing far-right activists to hold a Trump Free Speech Rally. Just nine days before, Jeremy Christianwho had attended marches held by the same activistshurled racist insults at two Muslim teenagers on a MAX train and then stabbed three men who came to the girls' defense, killing two of them. Wheeler said the city's wounds were still too raw.

But the ACLU wasn't having it.

"The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period," the ACLU tweeted in response. "If we allow the government to shut down speech for some, we all will pay the price down the line."

In March, the ACLU had been just as firm in its opposition when the Portland City Council voted to instate a rule banning "disruptive" leftist gadflies from council meetings.

"Free speech is an indivisible right, and everyone has to have it for the whole thing to work," Armstrong says.

Recently, the ACLU of Oregon stood up for those who have very little power to raise their own voices, by taking on laws that bar homeless people from panhandling in Portland and Gresham. The cities settled the case and are currently changing their laws against panhandling after the ACLU challenged them on the grounds that they illegally outlawed an entire class of speech: speech asking for money.

The civil liberties group's most recent free speech victory, on June 28, helped a coalition of conservation groups exercise the right to buy ads in Portland International Airport after the Port of Portland refused to post anti-clearcutting billboards because of their political message.

And there's more: The ACLU had a major victory in April when Portland and Gresham settled in a case involving a woman who livestreamed the police in 2013. A Gresham police officer grabbed Carrie Medina's phone, twisted her arm and detained her, effectively censoring her. The free-speech champions have also put pressure on Portland police to use a lighter touch when policing protests and to stop targeting protest leaders and political activists.

"Being known as a place where people regularly take to the streets, people are surprised when they see what the police response to protest is like here," Armstrong said. "You'll definitely see more from us on protest rights. We're clearly not done."

Read the original here:
The ACLU of Oregon Has Emerged as Portland's Most Consistent Free-Speech Fundamentalists - Willamette Week

The court case between a current Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly member and the borough administration has reached a conclusion.

Willy Dunne, who has represented District 9 to the assembly since 2015, sued the borough in March, claiming his right to free speech was being restricted because the borough attorney told him not to publish an opinion article in local newspapers on the advice of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit representing the borough in another related lawsuit over the borough assemblys invocation policy.

Under the terms of the settlement, dated July 3, the borough will pay Dunne $10,000 to partially cover his legal fees. In exchange, the court will dismiss the case with prejudice, which prevents the parties from bringing it back to court even if new information comes out in the future, according to the settlement. Superior Court Judge Anna Moran signed the order July 10, according to court records.

The case arose because Dunne, who had sponsored an assembly ordinance to eliminate the invocation that ultimately failed, wanted to publish an opinion article providing his reasoning in local newspapers. When he submitted the piece to the boroughs legal department for review, Borough Attorney Colette Thompson conferred with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which said it did not approve of the piece. Part of the boroughs contract with the ADF, which Borough Mayor Mike Navarre signed in December 2016, said the borough agreed to cooperate with the ADF in public representation of the case.

Dunne said Thompson told him not to publish, a claim both Thompson and the attorney representing the borough in both cases, Kevin Clarkson, have since refuted.

The Defendants affirmatively deny that they ever, either directly or through any borough officials, restricted or prohibited Mr. Dunnes speech or publication of matters he wished to communicate to his constituents, fellow assembly members and other borough and state residents, the settlement states. Plaintiff Dunne does not agree.

After a hearing March 16 in which Clarkson said the borough wouldnt block Dunne publishing the piece, he did, but the ordinance he was arguing for failed at the March 21 assembly meeting anyway. At a March 22 hearing, Clarkson said the borough planned to ask for the judge to dismiss the case because the point of the suit was now moot.

On March 29, Clarkson filed the motion to dismiss, saying there was no cause for conflict. Dunnes attorney, Anchorage lawyer John McKay, filed a motion in opposition, saying there were still a number of points requiring clarification from the court, including the fact the Dunne still claimed the borough attorney initially told him not to speak the Alliance Defending Freedoms contract could be interpreted as enforceable against borough assembly members.

McKay said one of the key issues he and Dunne sought from the court was a clear ruling that this contract couldnt be used to stop assembly members from speaking about issues related to the invocation policy, either in public or in private, without approval from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Because the language of the contract is vague, it could be interpreted that way, he said.

Although McKay was glad Dunne and Navarre could agree on the settlement, he said it was frustrating that the borough waited so long to settle the case after he and Dunne had said they were willing to settle the case earlier to avoid the additional costs, appropriating an additional $25,000 for legal fees in this case in late March.

They were willing to spend more money than they had to, both for us and for their own lawyers, just to fight the fact that they could enforce this contract against borough assembly members, he said. In some ways, it didnt affect (Dunne) any more than it affected any other assembly members.

Neither Dunne nor a representative for the borough could be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawsuit over the invocation policy, titled Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, was filed Dec. 14, 2016 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska asking the court to find the borough assemblys policy setting rules for who can give an invocation before the meetings as unconstitutional. The assembly adopted the rules when a controversy arose after a woman representing the Satanic Temple gave an invocation before the meeting in August 2016.

The trial for Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough is set for the week of Feb. 26, 2018 in Anchorage.

Reach Elizabeth Earl at elizabeth.earl@peninsulaclarion.com.

See more here:
Borough to settle Dunne free speech case - Kenai Peninsula Online

Its a classic Internet argument.

This is a danger to free speech!

No, its not! The government isnt shutting anyone up!

Ive got good news. Both can be right. There are plenty of things that endanger free-wheeling and robust speech without the government getting involved at all. A helpful way to think about it is the First Amendments protections are a suggestion for the least a free society should do to protect and foster free speech, not an accomplishment for which we should engage in vigorous back-patting.

This is the crux of an argument one of my colleagues, Kirsten Powers, is having with seemingly the entire Internet.

In the late-night hours of July 4, CNN published a story about the Reddit user who created a video suddenly infamous for being tweeted by the president of the United States. We live in strange times, so this Redditors meme was a video of President Donald Trump beating down a wrestling opponent with a CNN logo superimposed over his face.

Andrew Kaczynski, a reporter who made his name digging up long-forgotten, newsworthy videos of prominent politicians, used those same Internet sleuthing skills to track down the user who made the meme. We live in strange times, so the subject of this national news storys handle was HanA**holeSolo, and his real name was not included in the story.

Here is the passage that addressed that decision, which set off alarm bells in many quarters of the Internet, uniting left and right for a brief moment on this Independence Day in their chorus of WUTs.

CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of this change.

It seemed to imply that HanA**holeSolos name was being withheld only because he agreed to stop engaging in speech the reporter or CNN didnt like, and should his behavior change, this mercy could be removed.I am employed by CNN, but dont speak for them. Kaczynski said the passage was only meant to communicate he had made no deal with the Redditor to withhold his name, and CNN backed him up.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false, the network said in the statement. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year-old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the users identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

But the whole affair raises a question about how we treat Internet trolls, when we out them, and at what cost. Powers has been in verbal fisticuffs over this question with honest interlocutors and abusive trolls alike for days.

Like Powers, I embrace the term speech nut. Like Powers, I wrote a book on dangers to free speech. But I disagree with her on this issue precisely because I care about free speech, not because I care about HanA**holeSolo in particular. Powers argues:

This mans speech was completely free of any restrictions. What his defenders are objecting to is him being accountable for what he wrote and posted. Holding a person accountable for what they say is not a violation of their free speech, unless the entity doing it is the government.

There are consequences to our speech. If a person wants to be in good standing in society, then they perhaps should not post racist garbage on the Internet for fun.

HanA**holeSolo isnt some great modern-day pamphleteer whom we should ensure at all costs can keep delivering us (and the president) hot memes from his den of racist sh*tposters. Hes not, and the fact that the White House finds inspiration in these corners of the Internet is newsworthy. Some of his other creations, including a a composite with Stars of David next to the Jewish CNN employees, are truly disgusting.

But media should be very careful about when they expose private citizens for the sin of political speech. They should be especially careful not to imply that content of political speech that crosses a big media entity is the reason for exposure. The media dont owe every troll on the Internet his or her anonymity, but doing disproportionate warfare with them can endanger and chill the speech of others.

As Voxs German Lopez put it simply, The Internet is not proportional.

The problem here is that the internet is not proportional. People wouldnt merely react to this guy making some offensive remarks on the internet by making some offensive remarks to him. They would react as the internet has reacted before to these kinds of situations with potentially thousands of hateful messages, death threats, attempts to get him fired, and harassment not just against him but also his family. Lines would quickly be crossed.

And its not just the Internet thats not proportional. Media has shown an inability to gauge its coverage of the online speech of private citizens.

Remember the #HasJustineLanded worldwide news furor over a single tweet or the week-long news cycle about a Republican staffers private Facebook post critical of the Obama daughters? The offenses of these women shouldnt have made them subjects of worldwide infamy, but they did. I am sympathetic to good, rational people who want to engage in online discussion, but put up barriers between it and their identities.

Again to Powers:We are not obligated to protect a persons identity so they can spread and foment racial hatred. They should take the hood off and own their behavior. Their targets do not have the luxury of being anonymous, after all. So why should they?

This all started with a Wrestlemania meme, not targeting of anyone. Although HanA**holeSolos other posts were anti-Semitic and racist, the one that made him newsworthy was well within bounds of American political discourse. It wasnt a threat of violence. It wasnt incitement. It was a goofy metaphor speech nuts shouldnt want to discourage Americans from making.

As to the question of anonymity, there are plenty of reasons that luxury shouldnt be jettisoned, even though it empowers some bad people to say bad things. Im a public figure. I put my real name with what I say online. I chose this way of doing things, and many private citizens do the same in their social media lives. It can be a helpful governor of online behavior that otherwise gets very dehumanizing and nasty. Ive been subjected to plenty of it myself.

But we shouldnt hold every private citizen with a Facebook account to the standards of a pundit or politician, who chose the strictures and exposure under which they speak.

Even if you do think a Wrestlemania clip is an out-of-bounds political statement, or that HanA**holeSolo should suffer for his other speech, consider this. Our justice system, though imperfect, attempts to value the presumption of innocence. This presumption is so important to us that we let the guilty go free so we dont wrongly convict the innocent.

A similar principle should apply to a culture of free speech. We let some truly vicious trolls and bad behavior by random Internet people go unpunished so we dont catch the innocent in a net meant for miscreants. In extreme cases, like incitement and threats, they must face consequences.

But this all started with a Wrestlemania meme. Even if I dont love it, and even if it was created by a guy who literally named himself A**hole, Ill go to the mats for it.

Mary Katharine Ham is a senior writer at The Federalist.

Read the rest here:
Going To The Mats For Free Speech Sometimes Means Letting Trolls Go Unpunished - The Federalist

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A free-speech group on Tuesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account, arguing the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York and joined by seven individual Twitter users, claims Trump blocked a number of accounts whose owners replied to his tweets with comments that criticized, mocked or disagreed with the president.

Trump's blocking of the accounts amounted to an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Because Trump frequently turns to Twitter to make policy statements, his account qualifies as a public forum from which the government cannot exclude people on the basis of their views, according to the lawsuit. Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last month White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States."

The suit names Spicer and Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, as defendants in addition to Trump. It asks for the blocking to be deemed unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to require the president to unblock users.

The complaint follows a letter from the Knight Institute to Trump last month warning it would sue if users were not unblocked.

"Everyone being able to see the president's tweets feels vital to democracy," Joseph Papp, one of the seven Twitter users involved in the suit, said in a statement.

Papp, an author, said he had been a registered Republican for 10 years and did not join the suit for political reasons, but that he "felt a deep sense of unease" when he was blocked.

Trump's Twitter use has drawn intense interest for his unvarnished commentary about his agenda and attacks on critics. His tweets often lead to tens of thousands of retweets and comments and can shape the news.

The Knight Institute's arguments may have merit, independent free speech and internet law scholars say, in part because Trump's tweets are used to announce policy decisions or can influence legislation. Previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook may bolster its case.

The federal suit, case number 1:17-cv-05205, was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Editing by Bill Rigby and Jeffrey Benkoe

Link:
US free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users - Reuters

wbur Commentary (Thom/ Unsplash)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

As all the world knows by now, last week our president prepared for his big meeting with Vladimir Putin by receiving round-the-clock briefings on the history of U.S.-Russian relations, as well as the recent accords of the G-20.

Kidding!

Actually, he prepared by tweeting out a video of himself pretend-assaulting a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head.

The obvious question here is why the leader of the free world or any adult living outside his parents basement would do such a thing. But we all know who Donald Trump is at this point. Expecting him to go more than a few days without trolling is like expecting a leech to go vegetarian.

Whats been more interesting to watch is the fallout, and in particular, the way that Trumps fellowinternet trolls have descended into self-pity at the first sign of public exposure.

As one might expect, media outlets did not take kindly to Trumps tweet, and CNN soon tracked down the man who created the video and posted it on a Reddit site devoted to Trump worship.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech onlineanonymously.

Like many of the folks who hang out on such sites, the Anonymous Poster (who Ill refer to as AP, because his handle is too profane to print) has a long history of posting racist vitriol.

Here are just a few examples of what AP posted:

*A photo of the gate to a concentration camp with the caption, Solved the refugee problem in Europe.

*Photos of dozens of CNN staffers marked with Stars of David.

*A photo of a Koran being burned with the caption, Dont mind me just posting an image to offend Islam.

*Repeated uses of the N-word in posts such as, I just like dancing when n------ are getting beat down by the cops and FBI stats dont lie n-----. You hood rats account for more that [sic] 50 percent of the murder, rape, robbery, and assault in the USA.

(Fun fact: This last outburst is based on a bogus stat our president tweeted out during the campaign. Classy!)

When Trump first posted the CNN video, AP proudly crowed, Holy s---!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s---post but the MAGA EMPORER [sic] himself!!! I am honored!!

But within a day, AP had issued a long apology, claiming that he wasnt a racist and never meant any of the horrible things he posted online.

So what might explain this sudden change of heart?

Heres a hint: CNN figured out APs true identity and contacted him by email. In other words, he was afraid of being exposed.

Conservative media outlets immediately accused CNN of threatening to blackmail AP by exposing his identity. To which I would respond: nonsense.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech online anonymously.

Much of the reason the internet has become a cesspool of cruel rhetoric is because folks like AP have weaponized anonymity. They use the internet to say whatever they want without having to face the consequences. Theyve turned the information superhighway into a playground full of coward-bullies wearing masks.

Like Trump, they love to dish out abuse. And like Trump, the moment anyone tries to hold them accountable, theypitch a fit.

They also threatenchildren. Yes, a group of white supremacists responded to the CNN report on AP by posting information about CNN employees, and threatening the kids of CNN employees unless they fired the lead reporter.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate.

So thats what weve come to: Racists who threaten innocent kids online are demanding digital hoods to protect them from public disapproval. Perhaps the federal government should provide them guns and ammo, as well? Would that Make America Great Again?

We now have a president with a history of tweeting and retweeting material from white nationalist websites. He also has a long history of inciting violence against protesters, the media and other perceived enemies.

Under his watch, hate crimes have predictably surged. Journalists who work to expose the sources of hate speech routinely receive death threats from Trumps racist army all of them anonymous, naturally.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate. Forcing them to stand behind their words is the least a civilized society can do.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Steve Almond Cognoscenti contributor Steve Almond is the author of 11 books of fiction and nonfiction. He writes Cog's advice column, #HeavyMeddle, and is the co-host of Dear Sugar Radio.

More

See original here:
Online Anonymity Is Not The Same Thing As Free Speech - WBUR

Thomas More Society has filed a lawsuit against Parkland High School and Parkland School District on behalf of students Elizabeth (Liz) Castro and Grace Schairer. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claims that school administrators have violated Liz and Graces free speech rights by denying their application to form a Students for Life club at the school and then conditioning approval on the students giving up certain speech rights.

Parklands initial denial and later attempt to impose extra requirements on Liz and Graces club are a far cry from the laws requirement that schools treat student clubs equally in every respect, said Jocelyn Floyd, special counsel for Thomas More Society. We hope that the court will quickly recognize the illegal and unconstitutional way the school has treated Liz and Grace and require Parkland High School to uphold their rights under both the First Amendment and Equal Access Act.

Liz Castro and Grace Schairer first approached the Parkland administration about starting Trojans for Life in September 2016. After numerous meetings and submitting a formal club proposal, their club was denied in March for being too political and controversial. Liz and Grace reached out for assistance to Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national organization that provides support to student pro-life clubs.

SFLAs attorneys at the Thomas More Society sent a demand letter to the school and the school district, challenging the administrators denial of the club as a violation of the federal Equal Access Act and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Society asked for the school to approve the club, giving it full access to the schools established expressive forum, equal to all other clubs.

SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation

In response, the district said it would approve the clubbut only if Elizabeth and Grace changed the clubs mission, abandoned certain activities, and gave up their rights to fundraise. Far from treating Trojans for Life equally, these are demands that no other clubs are required to meet.

The school is treating us like second-class citizens because we want to create a culture of life and be a positive influence to our peers, said Grace Schairer, who will be a senior this coming fall at Parkland High School. We want to educate our fellow students about abortion and at the same time be a visible resource for our peers facing unplanned pregnancies. The school has made it clear that it will not allow us to have this type of club, so we decided to file the lawsuit. We are hoping for a quick resolution so Trojans for Life can hit the ground running at the start of the fall semester, along with all the other clubs at Parkland High School.

Holding pro-life views and wanting to create a culture of life on campus is not grounds for the blatant discrimination shown by school administrators, said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. It is our hope that Parkland High School swiftly allows the Students for Life at the school the same rights granted to every other group on campus.

The Thomas More Societys lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with assistance from local co-counsel Christopher G. Sweet of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., asks for the court to order Parkland School District to approve Trojans for Life with the rights and privileges granted to all other clubs.

View post:
High School Sued for Denying Students' Free Speech by Rejecting Their Pro-Life Club - LifeNews.com

On Wednesday, you may go to your favorite website and see a pop-up window that claims the site has been blocked, that its stuck in the slow lane or now requires a subscription.

Dont be alarmed: This is the internets version of a protest, and its fighting for the cyber version of free speech, commonly called net neutrality.

Then again, do be alarmed: Theres a good chance that federal regulators will dismantle the current framework that allows for net neutrality, and that theyll do so without any replacement mechanism to enforce an open internet.

People who would like to change the way we regulate the internet argue that the current method has stifled innovation since it went into effect two years ago.

That idea is hard to square with the fact that the companies participating in this weeks protest are the innovators. Some on the list include Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Vimeo and Reddit.

But heres where it gets more complex. One argument of net neutrality opponents is: If broadband internet service providers like Comcast could charge higher fees for the biggest bandwidth hogs (cough cough, Netflix; cough, Amazon), wouldnt they be able to afford to build advanced fiber networks that would spawn new types of innovation? Ill leave you to consider this idea that ISPs are too cash-poor to innovate.

Backing up a bit, net neutrality is the idea that the internet is a cyber piazza, an open forum for debate and innovation, where giants like Google, Netflix and Facebook have no inherent advantage over startups and newcomers.

Unlike actual public piazzas, the cyber forum for debate and speech is reliant on a delivery infrastructure, and that infrastructure is populated by profit-driven monopolies. ISPs built the roads that lead to the cyber piazza, and they installed giant toll booths aka monthly subscriptions. So net neutrality rules are really just rules that apply to them. The idea is that Comcast shouldnt be able to charge a higher toll for Netflix than for its own subsidiaries.

The current head of the Federal Communications Commission has said he wants to preserve net neutrality, just not in its current form. Yet the FCC plans to slash Title II, the legal foundation for net neutrality. In 2015, former President Barack Obama asked the FCC to classify ISPs as utilities that the federal government could regulate. The impending regulations barred ISPs from blocking or throttling websites, favoring certain content over others, and more.

Opponents argue that Title II is antiquated because it originated in the 1930s. Im not sure whats wrong with old laws, but I do know that a bunch of pop-up windows and shut-down websites probably isnt going to change what is a foregone conclusion at the FCC.

For it to be permanent, the road to net neutrality needs to be paved by innovators, not government. The Amazons and Googles and Facebooks need to develop and build that advanced fiber network that ISPs supposedly cant afford. They need to do what they do best: disrupt industry through innovation. The giants can put their money where their protests are, and build new networks that make ISPs obsolete.

Bureaucrats dont understand technology and government doesnt move fast enough to regulate it. These people know not what they do or say, as evidenced by our commander in chiefs weird announcement about forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit with Russia yesterday.

I think this is cluelessness, not malevolence. And the only way to fight it is through innovation.

Excerpt from:
Booting Up: Free speech in danger - Boston Herald

A Pew poll released Mondayshows that Republicans views ofhigher education institutions havetaken a dramatic turn forthe worsesince 2015.

In September 2015, 54percent of Republicans told Pew that they had a positive stance on college and universities, while 37percent felt negatively toward them.

Today, their attitude seems to have taken a complete U-turn, with 58percent of Republicans saying that colleges and universities had a negative effect on the way things are going in the country. Only 36percent maintainedthat theyre good for the country.

Meanwhile, 72percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democrat have a positive attitude toward the institutions. According to Pew, this stance hasnt changed much in recent years.

This striking switch among Republicans echoes a trend among conservatives ofblasting PC culture and censorship of free speech on college campuses and taking legislative action against it.

On June 20, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) held a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on free speech on college campuses titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

According to the Washington Post, Grassley charged that free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

Also present was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who lamented, Its tragic what is happening at so many American universities where college administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police.

Two days after the hearing, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a GOP-backed bill allowing college administrators to expel students for disrupting college speakers, according to NBC.

Wisconsin Gov.Scott Walker (R) applauded the move:

See more here:
Poll: Majority Of Republicans Now Say Colleges Are Bad For America - TPM

A federal judge has given Twitter permission to proceed with a First Amendment lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice over restrictions limiting how tech companies can disclose details about government surveillance requests.

Twitter sued the government in 2014 after the Justice Department barred the company from revealing the exact number of requests for user data its received from federal authorities, but the government countered by claiming disclosing that data would be detrimental to national security.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled against the governments bid for summary judgement Thursday and said its restrictions constitute a prior restraint on Twitters freedom of speech and subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the draft transparency report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict-scrutiny standard, the judge ordered.

Even where courts have hesitated to apply the highest level of scrutiny due to competing secrecy and national security concerns, they have nevertheless held that heightened or rigorous scrutiny of such restrictions on speech is required, she added.

The judge dismissed the governments argument and instead ordered the Justice Department to expedite the process of granting security clearances for Twitters attorneys so they can review any classified documents subsequently filed in Washingtons defense.

This is an important issue for anyone who believes in a strong First Amendment, and we will continue with our efforts to share our complete transparency report, Twitter said in a statement welcoming the ruling.

Existing rules allow Twitter and other tech companies to disclose the number of government surveillance requests theyve received in wide bands, such as 0-999. Twitter has argued the restrictions are unconstitutional and prevent the company from being transparent with its customers.

View post:
Twitter can proceed with free speech case against DOJ, federal ... - Washington Times