Category Archives: Free Speech

Attorneys for an influencer sued for libel and slander by a Koreatown plastic surgery and laser treatment center argue in new court papers that the complaint should be dismissed on free-speech grounds, citing the late chef and author Anthony Bourdain as part of their arguments.

"Horrible, horrible place. There's so many places in Koreatown, and Wave is definitely on the list to do not go, and they actually treated me the worst than any place I've walked into," defendant Tina Kim said, according to the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit brought by WAVE Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Laser Center.

But according to court papers filed Tuesday with Judge Maureen Duffy- Lewis, Kim's comments on her TikTok post, a video of 3 minutes, 16 seconds, are protected speech.

"Imagine a world where the late Anthony Bourdain faced a lawsuit for his online criticism and opinion of a cuisine he tried, filed by the owner of the establishment that served the cuisine, freedom of speech would be stifled, and the free flow of information could be hindered due to the fear of having to spend substantial amounts of money defending against such lawsuit," Kim's lawyers state in their anti-SLAPP motion.

The state's anti-SLAPP -- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

The business sued Kim "simply because plaintiff and its owner, Dr. Peter Lee, did not appreciate what (Kim) had to say about the treatment she received during her visit to plaintiff's facility," the anti-SLAPP motion states.

According to the suit filed Dec. 7, WAVE "provides a luxurious environment for patients desiring outstanding outpatient surgery" and the staff and providers "strive to provide cutting-edge and state-of-the-art technology and services for patients in the field of aesthetic and anti-aging plastic surgery."

WAVE has industry-leading doctors who specialize in many surgical and non-surgical procedures and has offices in Los Angeles, Costa Mesa, Arcadia, Rowland Heights and San Francisco, according to the suit, which further states that Kim has more than 86,000 TikTok followers and 4.5 million combined likes on all her TikTok posts.

The video at issue was posted Nov. 7 by Kim through her public account, @kdramalogic, and is titled "My review of walking into Wave Plastic Surgery Center in Koreatown L.A." the suit states.

"I walked in, I walked towards the reception, none of them greeted me," Kim said, according to the suit. "Nothing. Nothing. I walked back up towards the reception area and there (are) three girls there. One is like on the phone. The other one is kinda just talking, and I'm just standing there, and you would think one of the three girls would go, `Oh, hey, so can I help you, do you have an questions?' Nothing, nothing."

When Kim left the business, she made a disparaging remark to the front desk employees, made a thumbs-down gesture and identified herself as an influencer, the suit states.

New customer sign ups have dropped sharply at WAVE since the Kim video's posting, according to the suit, which further alleges Kim intentionally published the video and its false statements with the malicious intent to drive business and customers away from WAVE and toward the plaintiff's competitors.

In a sworn declaration in support of her dismissal motion, Kim says she has appeared worldwide as a comedian and that she posts "various fun and entertaining video reviews on my TikTok page from topics ranging from Korean Pop music, to Kdramas, places to get cheap eats, where to get your haircut, facials and other face work done in Koreatown, where I live, and in Seoul Korea as part my TikTok postings."

Kim says she also often visits plastic surgery facilities in Los Angeles and Korea and posts videos on her TikTok page about her experiences because "people love knowing about Botox and the latest face laser treatments and facials."

Kim further says she had a previous unpleasant customer service experience with WAVE and decided to give them another chance when she was in the area on Nov. 7 after leaving a bank.

"Wave had no customers inside and it was dead silent when I entered its lobby," Kim says. "When I walked in, there were three individuals sitting behind the front desk. None of these individuals greeted me or even acknowledged my presence. I also found the information they list online about them being a luxury outpatient surgery service, acceptance of walk-ins and the quality in which they treat clients to be far from the truth and misleading."

Kim says she waited for what seemed like 15 minutes to be acknowledged.

"All of them could clearly see me standing there and all three just ignored me as I stood a few feet away," Kim says. "I have never been treated so poorly at any face clinic and as I was at the door, I turned around and told them they're getting a bad review and that I am influencer, to which they still ignored me. They treated me as if I didn't even exist."

Kim says she has received about 670 comments on her video post. A hearing on Kim's dismissal motion is scheduled April 16.

Follow KNX News 97.1 FM Twitter|Facebook|Instagram|TikTok

Here is the original post:
Influencer seeks dismissal from suit on free speech grounds - Audacy

Open this photo in gallery:

A protester in convocation garb and a keffiyeh scarf attends a Nov. 20 protest at Columbia University, where students, alumni and supporters criticized the school for banning the groups Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Jacob T. Levy is the chair of the department of political science and Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University.

Across the United States and Canada, universities are struggling to navigate the politics of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. Here in Montreal, campus politics reached its ugliest point about a month into the conflict, with violence between opposing groups of student protesters at Concordia, and the extraordinary suspension of a University of Montreal lecturer who was involved in the Concordia episode. Since then, things have been quieter here but not everywhere. Six Canadian universities are being sued for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students from a hostile antisemitic environment. Demands to suppress the speech of pro-Palestinian student protesters have reached as high as the U.S. Congress, and have cost two elite university presidents their jobs.

Particularly in the U.S., the complexity of the current moment has been aggravated by the demonization of higher education in the highly polarized culture wars of the past decade. But even without that external political environment, the very acute disagreements about Israel and Palestine highlight how little shared understanding there is between different university constituencies, and between universities and the general public, about how to handle heated debate on campus.

This is partly because the principles governing university life are in some ways strange and counterintuitive, so theyre complicated to defend and tempting to abandon. Its also partly because educators havent put in the work defending them. Many institutions of higher education have let some of the resources and credibility they need in a moment like this slip away, and this crisis should spur them to rebuild those resources and credibility before the next one inevitably arrives.

The highest-profile development in the post-Oct. 7 academic troubles was the Dec. 5 U.S. House of Representatives committee hearing grilling the leaders of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania, and the subsequent resignation of two of them, Harvards Claudine Gay and Penns Elizabeth Magill. While there were idiosyncrasies about both cases Dr. Magill had been under fire about perceived campus antisemitism before Oct. 7, and in the end Dr. Gay was brought down by allegations of plagiarism the core problem at those universities was much the same as it has been elsewhere.

Harvard's then-president Claudine Gay testifies on Capitol Hill on Dec. 5 alongside her University of Pennsylvania counterpart, Liz Magill. Both would resign weeks later.Mark Schiefelbein/The Associated Press

Opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, of course, highly polarized to begin with. Undergraduate activists on any issue are often prone to immoderation. And North American universities include a diverse mix of Jewish, Muslim and Arab students (and faculty and staff), including many who are themselves from Israel or the Palestinian Territories, or who have family connections there. And so the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians prompted two immediate responses. One was a combination of mourning and fear on the part of Jews, including Israelis and those with family ties to Israel. And one was an activist mobilization in support of Palestinian rights, a mobilization that included some early endorsements of armed resistance to Israel that were ignorant of the actual scale of the attacks, some that werent, and some pre-emptive attention to the violent Israeli response that was sure to follow. Jewish members of university communities were outraged and frightened, and appealed to university leaders to denounce the attacks and denounce, if not suppress, the pro-Palestinian protest speech. Different universities answered these appeals differently, but at many, the responses were deemed insufficient by Jewish students and alumni. As the Israeli counterattack unfolded, expanded and persisted, counterappeals were made: If the university took a stand against the Hamas attacks, why would it not also take a stand against the devastation Israel was unleashing on Gaza? These werent the only questions that divided campuses, but they were the ones that prompted the congressional hearings on whether the protesters speech tendentiously characterized as advocating the genocide of Jews was being sufficiently restricted.

There have been a lot of sources of confusion in the debate about all this. One is that universities offer very robust protection for political and protest speech, but as an incidental byproduct, not in the same deliberate way that a liberal democratic society does. A universitys core commitment is to the discovery, transmission and preservation of knowledge paradigmatically, what is done in research, in teaching, and in publication and library collection. The principle that defends that commitment is not freedom of speech as such, but rather academic freedom.

A member of the Jewish Student Union of Germany speaks at a silent protest in Berlin on Dec. 15, in response to a pro-Palestinian group's occupation of a university lecture hall.Annegret Hilse/Reuters

Academic freedom has a few moving parts:

First, the freedom to follow arguments and evidence where they lead, according to scholarly methods. The researcher, or for that matter the student writing a paper for a class, is free to reach unpopular conclusions and to overturn established ideas, provided that they can support and defend those conclusions.

Second, the freedom to teach, within the confines of the scholarly mission of the class, and limited by the freedom of students to be secure that they will be assessed fairly. These limits mean that professors need to stick to the subject as that is defined by their scholarly community or discipline; when assigned to teach astronomy, they cant teach astrology. They also mean that the front of the classroom isnt a pulpit or a political platform. But within those constraints, professors have substantial freedom to choose their pedagogical approach, their course materials, which ideas to emphasize, which skills to teach and so on.

And finally, freedom from evaluation on non-academic grounds, of which the traditionally most important are political and religious grounds. Members of the academic community are only to be academically evaluated, for purposes ranging from student grades to professors tenure, on the grounds of the success of their academic work. They may not lose academic standing (student enrolment, faculty employment and so on) for their views and speech on other questions. In the early 20th-century cases that helped shape this rule, universities came to the understanding that, say, an economist couldnt be fired for being an atheist, a mathematician for being a socialist; what they had to say on those political and religious questions was irrelevant to their work. The technical phrase here is freedom of extramural speech outside the walls of the laboratory, the classroom and the library. Protections of extramural speech are very strong, not primarily in order to protect that speech, but in order to protect the academic integrity of what goes on inside the laboratory, classroom and library.

A rule that has traditionally accompanied and strengthened academic freedom is institutional neutrality. If academic freedom is the ability of scholars and scholarly communities or disciplines to work without having an orthodoxy imposed on them, institutional neutrality is the commitment not to declare an orthodoxy in the first place. Just like a professor at the front of a classroom shouldnt use it as a pulpit to announce their own political and religious views, so too should the university as a whole not adopt substantive political or religious opinions that would chill the freedom of its members to pursue their own ideas and arguments. A great deal of important political inquiry and debate happens at a university, but its undertaken by students and professors with differing views pursuing differing arguments, not by the institution as a whole declaring official conclusions.

Universities sometimes need to speak up in favour of their own institutional interests or the general needs of higher education. A few university decisions unavoidably require substantive moral judgments about political figures: whose contributions are worth honouring with an honorary degree, whose career involved so much injustice that their name should be stripped from buildings. But when theres not that kind of necessary connection to university business, the institution should stay silent and neutral, to guarantee the freedom of students and professors to inquire, criticize and debate.

Faculty, staff and students at York University in Toronto walk out on Nov. 28 to support academics arrested for allegedly vandalizing an Indigo store.Chris Young/The Canadian Press

These principles generate some surprising and strange outcomes. For example, the odd thing about the centrality of student protests to important moments in university life is that they are so irrelevant to the universitys mission. There is very strong protection for the freedom of protest, not because protest is important to a university the way it is to a democratic society, but because its academically irrelevant. Its wrong to question a students (or professors) standing in the academic community because of what they say at a protest or on social media, or in any other non-academic setting. The only appropriate limits are not about the content of whats said, but about the conduct of the protest action; the university has to protect not only the safety of its other members but also the security of its academic functions. It cant rule against the language on a sign, but it must intervene to prevent violence between students, or occupations and blockades that would prevent a class from meeting, or an invited speaker from speaking.

This is easier said than done. Universities have very good reason to avoid deploying the force of campus security officers or regular police against students, even when those students threaten core campus activities and thus the rights of other students. Escalation, overreach and the chilling of legitimate protest are all constant dangers; and the whole student body, including the protesters, is part of the academic community. Police helicopters and billy clubs on campus are always a sign of failure. But waiting until a wrongful protest ends peacefully and then taking action against the protesters requires knowing their identities, and it doesnt take much of a face covering to make that difficult. So universities have often ended up shrugging off such protests, with occasional unpredictable bursts of punitive seriousness. These are genuine problems that dont lend themselves to straightforward solutions, but many universities have probably erred too far in the direction of the shrug, letting the belief grow that classes may be disrupted or speakers blockaded without consequence.

Swiss police scuffle with anti-war protesters at the University of Lausanne on Nov. 16, where the French and Swiss presidents were visiting campus.Cyril Zingaro/Keystone via AP

The freedom-through-indifference that is the universitys correct stance toward protests doesnt, however, satisfy the protesters. When you bring together lots of energetic young adults at the life stage when theyre most politically idealistic and least weighed down by competing responsibilities, when you put them in an environment of intellectual ferment, you get activism. Sometimes this has made student activist movements important parts of social and political change or reform. More often the activism is experienced by those who take part in it as morally critical and personally transformative. And when thinking about the issues that inspire their hopes or their anger, they often want more from the university than indifference. They want affirmation: for the institution to announce its commitment to the cause, to devote educational resources to it, to reallocate its endowment or spending in support of it, to suppress the speech of those who oppose it.

It can be hard for institutions to resist, particularly when faculty and administrators are broadly sympathetic to the same cause as the students. So they let institutional neutrality slip, making declarations and symbolic statements affirming that the university is on the side of all good things when its not the job of a university to be on a side at all. An increasing habit of this in the past decade pronouncements on non-university political questions from abortion to police violence to the Russia-Ukraine war left a disaster waiting to happen.

Happen it did, in the autumn of 2023 when the members of university communities conspicuously did not all sympathize with the same cause. When faced with demands to denounce Hamas, or student activists who endorsed Palestinian armed resistance, or Israel, or Zionist speech on campus, or whatever, universities often fell back on the rule of institutional neutrality. But critics found it hard to take that rule seriously any more because, they said, the institution had shown that it didnt take it seriously either. By the same token, the rule that the university shouldnt take any interest in the rhetoric thats used in a protest or on social media was harder to take seriously in an era of hate-speech rules, restrictions on exclusionary speech, and a discourse around safety that treated hostile language as violence. And so many universities found themselves accused of doing too little to criticize Hamas or to denounce and restrict pro-Palestinian speech by critics who noted that denouncing bad things and restricting hateful or unsafe speech seemed to be very much part of the institutional tool kit these days.

A truck with protest banners drives around the Harvard campus on Dec. 12, linking the debate over the Israel-Hamas war with conservative grievances about pronoun policies.JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

These were problems of universities own making. But they coincided with problems that were very much not. What we have seen since Oct. 7 is in part the culmination of almost a decade of attacks on higher education by the ascendant populist-authoritarian wing of conservative politics. Starting in about 2015, conservative politicians, media figures and activists began a sustained campaign against perceived leftward movements at universities, particularly on race, gender and gender identity.

In the U.S., a steady drumbeat of stories in the conservative press about campus identity politics drove a dramatic divergence in public confidence in higher education. In 2015, a majority of Republicans thought higher education had a beneficial effect on American society, by a 17-point margin. Two years later, they thought the reverse, by 22 points. (Democratic views were basically stable in the same period.) Conservative advocacy groups created watchlists of left-wing professors and encouraged students to report on them or secretly record them. Formerly staid campus conservative groups radicalized and began inviting provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos to speak, seeking more and more attention by provoking protests and sometimes cancellations.

At first, these critics of higher education focused on the idea that free speech and academic freedom were coming under threat: Visiting speakers were being silenced and conservative students were censoring themselves in a climate of left-wing intolerance. That emphasis has since faded away, in favour of an open willingness to suppress teaching, research and speech about race and gender that conservatives dislike. The centre of gravity has shifted from individual celebrity provocateurs to conservative governments that really do have the power to cancel.

In 2017, Hungarys authoritarian conservative government launched an eventually successful campaign to drive the privately funded and Western-oriented Central European University out of the country and to prohibit the discipline of gender studies. Starting in 2021, Republican state politicians across the United States began advocating heavy-handed interference in teaching and research about (especially) race and (to a lesser extent) gender, with many bills banning the teaching of what was inaccurately called critical race theory. The conservative activist Chris Rufo, who recently led the charge to push Harvards president out of office on plagiarism charges, was a prime culprit in mischaracterizing teaching and research about systems of racial privilege and disadvantage as critical race theory, and making its prohibition a cause clbre. He found an active ally in Floridas Republican Governor and then-future presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, who pushed through restrictions on speech, texts, teaching and research about race, gender and sexual orientation that reached from primary school to Floridas huge system of public universities. When Mr. DeSantis decided to remake Floridas elite liberal arts-oriented New College as a model of anti-wokeism, abolishing its gender-studies department and filling its student body with recruited athletes for newly established sports teams, he appointed Mr. Rufo as one of the colleges new trustees.

Protesters at New College in Sarasota, Fla., dress as Handmaid's Tale characters at a rally last February against the state government's education policies.Octavio Jones/Reuters

The moves to restrict higher education in Florida have been especially prominent, but Republican politicians and politically appointed trustees in states including Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Louisiana, among others, have likewise shifted to direct interference in university curriculums and hiring decisions on political grounds. Up until Oct. 7, the emphasis had been overwhelmingly on gender studies and (again, wrongly called) critical race theory. The conflict in the Middle East shook up the political dynamics and expanded the conflict from public universities in Republican states to all of North American higher education. Elite liberal universities arent openly divided about the legitimacy of studying race or gender, but the Arab-Israeli conflict splits apart constituencies everywhere. Genuine intra-campus conflicts of values and misunderstandings of principle created a vulnerability that hostile off-campus actors have been happy to exploit.

The events of the past few months have driven home how little the right-wing critique of universities was ever actually about freedom of speech or academic freedom. The downfall of two university presidents partly for their failure to censor student speech and their refusal to say that more such speech should be punished just makes it undeniable. But Jewish and pro-Israel members of university communities arent necessarily guilty of the same hypocrisy. Theyve seen universities themselves shift away from the principles of academic freedom, freedom of non-academic speech, and institutional neutrality, often in the name of protecting vulnerable populations, and, in the wake of the murders of Oct. 7, asked whether Israeli Jews are somehow outside the category of the vulnerable. Many institutions of higher education have gotten in the habit of making pronouncements on political issues that tried to be substantive and anodyne at the same time; of letting some speech restrictions creep in on speech that surely everyone can agree is bad; of regulating the content of particularly vicious political messages but tolerating protests that blockade academic activities. These are generalizations that dont apply to all colleges and universities, indeed probably not most; but enough to weaken the credibility of the core principles.

The best time to have started to do the right thing was yesterday, but the second-best time is today. University leadership cant wish away the off-campus attacks, but they can recommit to academic freedom, freedom of extramural speech, and institutional neutrality, starting now. That will mean, for example, a firm defence of the right of pro-Palestinian students to protest non-disruptively; a clear stand against professors using their classrooms as political platforms; a refusal to adjudicate and police the meaning and intent of extramural political slogans or social-media posts; and the discipline to avoid adopting institutional political platforms on foreign, political or social policy. With those rules in place, they can provide the site and space for students and faculty alike to study, explore, discuss and debate, to celebrate, mourn and protest, even the most divisive questions in political life.

Read the original here:
Opinion: Campus culture wars are a teachable moment in how freedom of speech and academic freedom differ - The Globe and Mail

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A jury has rejected a former Collin College professors claim that the North Texas school violated his First Amendment rights by not renewing his contract after it expired at the end of the 2022 school year.

History professor Michael Phillips claimed in a lawsuit filed last year that school leaders retaliated against him for speaking out against the McKinney community college's COVID-19 policies and his support to remove Confederate statues in Dallas.

But a jury, located in nearby conservative Grayson County, rejected that claim Monday, stating that Phillips did not prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that the school retaliated against him. The jury also found that Collin College President Neil Matkin would have reached the same conclusion not to renew Phillips contract even if the professor hadnt spoken out publicly on those issues.

Despite repeated attacks by the plaintiff, his supporters, and various advocacy groups with their own agendas, this case resulted in a legal victory, including affirmation that the colleges policies are not unconstitutionally vague as alleged, Collin College spokesperson Marisela Cadena-Smith said in a press release Monday night.

Phillips was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a legal group that represents students and faculty in free speech legal issues across the country.

We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of todays trial, said FIRE attorney Greg Greubel. However, we remain incredibly proud to represent Dr. Phillips. FIRE will continue to fight for the expressive rights of faculty across the country.

FIRE also represented two other former Collin College professors whose contracts were not renewed. They also sued the community college district over alleged violations of free speech.

Former history professor Lora Burnett sued the school last year alleging that she was fired for public statements she made about former Vice President Mike Pence. According to Burnett, the college decided not to renew her contract due to insubordination, making private personnel issues public that impair the colleges operations, and personal criticisms of co-workers, supervisors, and/or those who merely disagree with you. She settled with the school, accepting an offer to receive $70,000 plus her attorneys fees, though the school did not admit liability.

Another professor, Suzanne Jones, who taught education, also sued Collin. She alleged she was fired for publicly criticizing the schools handling of the pandemic and her work to start a local campus chapter of the Texas Faculty Association, a statewide higher education faculty union that lacks bargaining rights. She also settled with the school last year and was reinstated as a professor.

In his lawsuit, Phillips claimed his issues with the college first began in August 2017 when he co-wrote an open letter calling for the removal of Confederate monuments in Dallas. The school told him that writing the letter violated the schools policy because it was something that made the college look bad and mentioned his institutional affiliation, the lawsuit read.

According to the lawsuit, two administrators told Phillips that the college policy requires faculty and staff to exercise appropriate restraint, exhibit tolerance for differing opinions, and indicate clearly that they are not an official spokesperson for the College District when they speak or act as private citizens because their actions will inevitably be judged by the public and reflect upon their profession and institution.

In 2019, Phillips was issued an employee coaching form after he gave an interview to The Washington Post to discuss race relations in the Dallas area after a Collin College student opened fire in a Walmart in El Paso.

According to the lawsuit, administrators said such interviews violated the schools policies because faculty are identified as Collin College professors, even if they are speaking as private citizens.

The lawsuit said Phillips was told in the coaching form that expectations moving forward are to follow the Presidents directives when approached by the media.

During the first year of the pandemic, Phillips wrote a post in his Facebook page criticizing Collin Colleges decision to return to full-time, in-person learning in fall 2020.

That feeling when your employer doesnt care about your health and safety, the post read.

The school again called him into a Zoom meeting alerting him his post violated the colleges code of professional ethics and its policy manual, the suit says.

In summer 2021, Phillips again posted a message on social media from a faculty meeting about the colleges COVID-19 guidelines, showing a slide that said faculty members are forbidden from requesting, requiring or recommending mask usage on signs or in their syllabi.

He posted the picture of the slide and wrote, Note what we were told about discussing masks and Covid with students at my college today. Phillips said he was issued a warning for the posts.

At the end of August that year, the school alerted Phillips his three-year contract would not be renewed, the lawsuit says. He filed a challenge to that decision and applied for a new contract through a faculty group at the college called the Council on Excellence, which helps faculty review applicants for new contracts.

As he was appealing the schools decision not to renew his contract, Phillips covered the history of pandemics in his classes and assigned his students to write a paper on the history of epidemics, from Christopher Columbus expedition to the American continent to COVID-19. During those teachings, the lawsuit says, Phillips reviewed anti-masks advocacy groups during the 1919 influenza pandemic and explained that historians found such resistance seriously damaged efforts to bring the flu under control.

According to the lawsuit, Chaelle OQuin, associate dean of academic affairs, told Phillips that students complained about his comments about mask-wearing and he was placed on a performance improvement plan.

While the faculty-run Council on Excellence recommended that Phillips receive a new contract, administrators ultimately disagreed and President Matkin decided not to offer him a contract, the lawsuit says.

When Johnson met with Phillips and told him it was unlikely he would get a new contract, he asked Phillips whether there was a way they could create a narrative that would allow Phillips to make a graceful exit from Collin College, the lawsuit states.

Collin College leaders said they have disagreed with Phillips characterization of events since the lawsuit was filed and said they were pleased a jury agreed.

Dr. Phillips signed a term contract which ended in May 2022. Under that contract, there is no right or reasonable expectation of continued employment beyond the term of the contract, Cadena-Smith said. As an employer, the college has every right to determine who it employs, particularly based on the recommendations of supervisors.

Phillips is now a senior research fellow at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Collin College, Facebook and Southern Methodist University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Correction, Nov. 14, 2023 at 3:12 p.m.: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that a Collin County jury rejected a former Collin College professors claim that the school had violated his First Amendment rights. The jury was in Grayson County.

See original here:
Texas jury rules against ex-Collin College professor in free speech suit - The Texas Tribune

ARTICLE 19 is horrified by the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the occupied Gaza Strip. The relentless and disproportionate attacks by Israel, a retaliation for the killing and kidnapping of civilians carried out by Hamas last month, have inflicted a devastating toll. The blatant disregard for human rights and humanitarian law principles we are witnessing is deeply disturbing. We condemn in the strongest terms the all-out assault on freedom of expression, which perpetuates cycles of violence and disinformation, obstructs reporting on the conflict, limits access to lifesaving information and disrupts the vital operations of hospital and humanitarian organisations. This needs to stop now. Respect for freedom of expression is essential to bring an end to the ongoing hostilities and ensure accountability for international crimes. We reiterate our urgent call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to end this unprecedented humanitarian crisis and prevent further loss of civilian lives.

According to the United Nations, as of 12 November 2023, over 12,200 people have been killed since 7 October 2023. At least 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed, and more than 240 abducted in the horrific attacks carried out in Israel by Hamas. At the time of writing at least 11,078 Palestinians have been killed by the subsequent relentless Israeli bombardment in Gaza, of whom 68% are said to be children and women. The UN estimates that 160 children are killed in Gaza every day. More than 3,250 people, including 1,700 children, have been reported missing and may be trapped or dead beneath rubble.

In the West Bank, 172 Palestinians have been killed since the 7 October attacks, including 46 children, at the hands of Israeli forces. Eight Palestinians, including one child, have been killed by armed Israeli settlers. Three Israelis have been killed in attacks by Palestinians.

The devastation is continuing at a deeply alarming scale.

In an environment marked by a blatant disregard for international law, all human rights are under threat. Any party to a conflict, regardless of how said conflict was prompted, is obliged to comply with the laws of war. The attacks by Hamas on 7 October do not exempt Israel from its obligations under international humanitarian law, which is rooted in the acknowledgement that armed conflicts exist but that even during these conflicts the harm that can be caused is not without limits. These rules protect fundamental principles of humanity, such as the prohibition of collective punishment and the obligation to avoid unnecessary suffering, and they apply without regard to the conduct of the adversary.

ARTICLE 19 is also gravely concerned about freedom of expression and information being another casualty of the conflict. We recall that the belligerents in this conflict are also bound by international human rights law, including freedom of expression, which is essential for the protection of civilians during conflicts. Violations of the basic right to free speech and to access information cannot find any justification.

The ongoing conflict has developed into a freedom of expression crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel and beyond. As the situation is fast becoming a humanitarian catastrophe, ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by the unprecedented killing of journalists carrying out their professional duties, the use of internet shutdowns, suppression of free expression and protest, and increasing online harms and hate speech, all of which will continue to perpetuate the violence, deaths, and humanitarian crisis on the ground.

So far, Israel has imposed three internet shutdowns in Gaza, on 27 October, lasting close to 36 hours, 1 November and 5 November. The blackouts exacerbated the humanitarian catastrophe, with humanitarian organisations losing contact with aid workers, and media houses not being able to reach their reporters preventing them from reporting from Gaza in real time as Israels ground invasion intensified. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called for immediate restoration of connectivity in response to the 28 October shutdown. Even beyond the blackouts, phone and internet communications in Gaza have been challenged by fuel shortages and damage to infrastructure caused by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

ARTICLE 19 recalls that in times of conflict, internet connectivity becomes a lifeline. It is vital for the distribution of aid, the operations of humanitarian organisations, enabling communication for those trapped under the rubble, or ambulance calls. The internet is also the primary means through which people can document and share information about the situation on the ground, including that of unfolding atrocities. When the internet is shut down, human rights violations are often committed with impunity.

Even in times of conflict, shutting down entire parts of communications systems can never be justified under international human rights law. Internet shutdowns of the sort we have seen in this conflict are also likely to violate a number of international humanitarian law rules. Attacks against any civilian infrastructure must adhere to targeting rules, including the distinction between military and civilian objects, the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. International humanitarian law further forbids collective punishment by imposing penalties on people without a clear lawful basis.

The ongoing situation makes it increasingly difficult to obtain critical information and evidence () and to hear directly from those experiencing the violations.Where shutdowns are implemented with the intent of covering up violations of international humanitarian law, they also constitute a breach of the obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. This obligation requires States to put in place measures to prevent violations from happening in the first place and to provide accountability for any violations that do take place.

This conflict has been the deadliest period for journalists covering conflicts since the Committee to Protect Journalists began documenting the death of journalists in 1992. As of 12 November 2023, they report that at least 40 journalists and media workers were killed, 8 journalists were reported injured and 3 were reported missing.

ARTICLE 19 recalls that international humanitarian law is crystal clear: journalists are considered civilians and cannot be military targets. We remain profoundly concerned about reports indicating that media workers may have been deliberately targeted by Israel.

Journalists operating in conflict zones carry out vital work and the warring parties must take steps to protect them. Despite this, the IDF has informed Reuters, Agence France-Presse and other outlets that it cannot guarantee the safety of their journalists in the Gaza Strip. Israel has continued to attack sites known to be sheltering civilians and journalists.

Many Palestinian journalists have also experienced arrests, assaults, threats, cyberattacks, and killings of family members while carrying out their journalistic duties. Suggestions made in certain Israeli outlets without evidence that some journalists may be linked to Hamas can put them at further risk.

For well over a decade, media access to the Gaza Strip has been severely limited: since the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel in 2007, journalists are not allowed to enter the territory without authorisation from Israel. On 31 October 2023, members of the French media called on the Israeli authorities to expand access granted to international journalists to Gaza, so more impartial, on-the-ground reporting can reach the world from the centre of the conflict.

Sweeping access restrictions for journalists cannot be justified by either international humanitarian or human rights law. The international humanitarian law for the protection of journalists who are engaged in dangerous professional missions in conflict areas in fact presupposes the general acceptance of news providers in the territory of armed conflict. Furthermore, restrictions to conflict zones for media even where based on national security criteria must meet the necessity and proportionality test and factor in the fundamental importance of an objective coverage of armed conflicts by an independent press. Overbroad restrictions that serve to control reporting on the conflict do not meet these criteria.

In this context we must also express alarm about recent confirmations by CNN about the conditions imposed by Israel for the outlet to be able to embed their reporters with the IDF. CNN has agreed to submit all the materials and footage to the Israeli army for review prior to publication, raising questions of the problematic trade-offs between access and independence of reporting. This comes amidst existing concerns over how this conflict has been covered by the media. Seven hundred and fifty journalists have signed a statement criticising asymmetric coverage of the conflict and expressing immense concern over the killing of their colleagues in Gaza.

On 15 October 2023, Israels communications minister confirmed he was seeking to shut down the local bureau of Al-Jazeera, accusing the outlet of pro-Hamas incitement. A few days later, the Israeli government approved emergency regulations allowing for a temporary shut down of foreign news organisations that are believed to harm national security, paving the way for the outlets possible closure.

Reportedly, approval to shut down Al Jazeeras local office is now being sought from Israels defence minister and security cabinet.It is further reported that the IDF last month ordered a closure of Palestinian news agency J-Media.

ARTICLE 19 reminds the authorities that the banning of media outlets be it domestic or foreign is a severe restriction of freedom of expression and is rarely justified. While, under international law, free expression can be restricted on national security grounds, this is subject to strict limitations. Media bans need to demonstrate the specific threats that a certain media outlet may pose to national security. Any restrictions must always be transparent, and provide evidence as to the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken and consider the impact that restrictions might have on the right of the public to receive information, particularly in times of conflict.

Any restrictions on media outlets should be imposed in respect of due process, transparency and by an independent media regulator, not executive branches of the government that are in charge of defence, national security, or the armed forces.

We are also troubled by the most recent reports that Israels parliament passed an amendment on 8 November 2023 to its counterterrorism law that, among others, is aimed to combat radicalisation of individuals through media consumption. It introduces the consumption of terrorist materials as a new criminal offence, which, as human rights groups have warned, could criminalise even passive social media use. We are very concerned that this amendment may be employed to target individuals whose online activities show their opposition to the way this conflict is being conducted, particularly in light of previous designations of Palestinian civil society organisations as terrorist entities.

The conflict has brought with it an exponential rise in instances of hate speech and antisemitic and islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama, which collates data on islamophobic attacks in the UK, recorded 515 incidents of anti-Muslim hate between 7 and 29 October, a sevenfold increase on the same period last year. In a tragic escalation internationally, on 16 October, a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume, was murdered and his mother severely injured by their landlord in an islamophobic and anti-Palestinian attack in Illinois.

Synagogues and Jewish community centres have been attacked in cities around the world, including Berlin and Montreal, and Jewish people have faced antisemitic threats, harassment and intimidation on the streets and in their neighbourhoods. In the UK, at least 893 antisemitic incidents were recorded between 7 and 31 October.

The antisemitic and islamophobic attacks are abhorrent. Authorities must ensure that crimes committed against Muslim and Jewish communities are subject to independent, speedy and effective investigations and prosecutions. At the same time, we warn against using such incidents as a pretext to unduly curb freedom of expression as not all forms of hate speech rise to the level of prohibited speech under international law.

In an environment where freedom of expression is attacked and journalists ability to report from Gaza is made extremely difficult, if not impossible, the role of social media companies and their ability to allow for information about the hostilities to circulate in and get out of Gaza cannot be overstated. Voices of local reporters and ordinary social media users on the ground are vital in informing the world about the realities of the conflict.

Despite their crucial role in this conflict, and despite repeated criticism over their handling of previous conflict situations, social media companies continue to fail, in many ways, to respect international human rights and international humanitarian law norms and to uphold freedom of expression during conflicts.

In particular, Palestinian voices are once again being silenced on social media platforms. Palestinian activists have for a long time complained about their accounts being unfairly suspended, shadowbanned or their content demoted. Last year, a review of Metas content moderation practices in relation to Israel and Palestine found evidence of bias that negatively impacted Palestinian users and their right to freedom of expression. During the current conflict, Palestinian users are now again facing similar issues, with TikTok and Instagram taking down or suspending accounts of Palestinians sharing on-the-ground news from Gaza.

From the very beginning, the conflict has also been mired with disinformation, illegal content and incitement to violence proliferating on social media. The biggest platforms, including Meta and X, have in recent months made deep cuts into their trust and safety teams, making the task of dealing with the content moderation issues at this time all the more challenging. On X, the decision to algorithmically amplify posts by paid subscribers supercharged the reach of accounts spreading unverified and misleading information and glorifying terrorist messages. It has also been reported that Telegrams lack of robust content moderation allowed heavy use by Hamas to broadcast violent videos and images of its attacks on southern Israeli communities in real time.

At the same time Israels widespread paid digital presence raises concerns about the monetisation of conflict-related content. The 2022 report on disinformation in armed conflicts by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has warned of the role of monetisation of conflict-related content during armed conflicts, noting that monetisation has taken place in spite of company policies that purport to limit the types of content deemed suitable for advertising.

Since Hamass attack, Israel has been heavily investing in the use of social media advertising, pushing out ads targeting specific countries and demographics to garner support for its ongoing offensive actions. The online ads are reported to include graphic videos. There is yet to be a review of the content of these ads to ascertain validity of claims and statistics used, partly due to a lack of transparency and accessibility of ad repositories. Google reportedly removed about 30 ads containing violent images, which means there is no public record that such ads ran for several days on YouTube. Given the potential for wide amplification of content contained in ads, platforms must meet the highest level of diligence in ensuring that those ads meet their community standards.

Antisemitism and islamophobia have risen exponentially on social media. For instance, reports show an over 4963% increase in the number of antisemitic comments on YouTube videos about the Israel/Palestine conflict and a 422% increase in language associated with anti-Muslim hate on X.

This is exacerbated by the AI systems of major social media companies. Metas use of AI tools has had an additional negative impact on users rights, exposing the bias inherent in those technologies. Instagrams automated translation model replaced Palestinian meaning Palestinian followed by the Arabic phrase Praise be to Allah with Palestinian Terrorist. On WhatsApp, an AI image generator created emojis of children holding guns when prompted with the word Palestinian. Palestinian rights organisations and Meta staff themselves have called on Meta to take immediate action to address this deep-rooted bias, which perpetuates harmful stereotypes.

Since 7 October, around the world, expressions of solidarity and protests have been met with clampdowns and rising restrictions.

In Israel, Arab citizens have been arrested by the police for expressing solidarity with Gaza on social media. Since 7 October 2,200 Palestinians have been arrested in the West Bank alone. On 6 November, for example, the Israeli army confirmed the arrest of prominent Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi during a raid in the occupied West Bank territories. Her father, who was arrested in an earlier raid, is held under administrative detention. ARTICLE 19 remains extremely concerned about the continuing and widespread use of administrative detention by Israel against activists and protesters.

In Western Europe, France and Germany have banned a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. In the UK, politicians stirred up divisive rhetoric with the Home Secretary referring to protests as hate marches and the Prime Minister putting pressure on the police officials to ban a rally scheduled on the same weekend as the Armistice Day celebrations. The blanket categorisation of protests against the war as pro-Hamas or suggestions that they are inherently disruptive raises serious concerns for the right to protest across the continent and beyond.

In various professional settings around the world, from newsrooms to academia and workplaces, individuals have been harassed, intimidated and their positions threatened because of their views of the conflict. In response to increasing risks to students on US campuses from doxxing campaigns and physical intimidation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has written to US college administrators reminding them that addressing antisemitism and islamophobia are vitally important , but that it cannot come at a cost to justified and peaceful expression. It urged them to reject baseless calls to investigate or punish student groups for exercising their free speech rights. In another concerning development, US congress has censured its only Palestinian member over comments critical of Israel and in support of Palestinians.

With the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza, increasing death tolls, and rising tensions reaching far beyond the conflicts geographical borders, ARTICLE 19 joins the UN, aid agencies and experts in calling for an immediate and maintained ceasefire. International standards, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, must be adhered to by the belligerent parties. Any violations of international law committed during the conflict must be independently investigated, including by the International Criminal Court and the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel.

We also urgently call for an end to the freedom of expression crisis that has accompanied this conflict, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel, and beyond. The safeguarding of free expression and access to information must be at the centre of the response to this conflict.

Read more:
Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories: Stop the assault on free ... - Article 19

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act became law on 11 May 2023. The new statutory duties on free speech for universities and colleges, and for relevant students unions, will come into force on 1 August 2024 and the new conditions of registration (rules that universities have to follow) on free speech and academic freedom come into force on the 1 September 2025.

In the meantime, we have some information to consider. The Office for Students published an Insight Brief: Freedom to Question, Challenge and Debate in December 2022. Universities UK have released some further, helpful, guidance. This includes a summary of the complex and interacting legal duties around freedom of speech.

As someone who spent an inordinate amount of time translating national policy, regulation and guidance into organisational procedure, there are several conundrums set out within this complex and interacting legal framework. Im going to consider three of these issues in a short HEPI blog series.

Issue number one objective harassment.

The issue of whether someones behaviour constitutes harassment, or not, has been the discussion of many articles and debates. This blog will consider the practical implications of ensuring the objectivity test on harassment is met in universities.

The OfS insight brief sets out the following:

Harassment (as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010) means unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a persons dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that person because of, or connected to, one or more of the persons relevant protected characteristics. In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to, it is necessary to consider:

The last point is important because it introduces an element of objectivity into the test. The perception of the person who is at the receiving end of the conduct is not the only relevant consideration in determining whether the conduct amounts to unlawful harassment.

The protected characteristics included under the harassment section of the Equalities Act are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Insight Brief also outlines:

Speech that is offensive and hurtful, but lawful, is protected.

If a person raises an allegation of harassment, the university must decide 1) that it was reasonable that this person felt harassed by this conduct; or,

2) that it was not reasonable that this person felt harassed by this conduct.

Specifically, they will need to consider if the conduct was:

unwanted conduct that had the purpose or effect of violating a persons dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that person.

Who are the objective people who can make this decision?

The decision will likely land in the lap of a student (or staff) misconduct panel, who are to decide whether behaviour about or towards a person, based on their personal characteristic, constitutes harassment. This is where it gets tricky.

Can an all-white misconduct panel have an objective understanding of how offensive and hurtful comments about race feel for a student of colour? Can an entirely heterosexual panel have an objective understanding of how offensive and hurtful comments about sexuality feel for a gay student? Could a gender-critical panel member objectively review an allegation of harassment made due to gender reassignment? Could a trans person objectively review an allegation of harassment made by a gender-critical feminist?

Should we expect panel members to declare their belief systems at the start of a panel, the way we ask them to declare conflicts of interest?

Should student complainants and respondents be allowed to object to the presence of panel members based on their protected characteristics (or lack of), the way they can when there is a perceived conflict of interest? Would excluding panel members based on their protected characteristics in itself contravene the Equality Act?

Should a panel be 50/50 between those who believe microaggressions constitute harassment and those who think people are offended too easily?

Im making these points facetiously, but the point is that we may believe that we as individuals are considering harassment objectively, but we would all be bringing our own lived experiences and beliefs to this decision-making process. This happens in the criminal justice system also, with jury members selected very purposefully at random. With each juror bringing their own knowledge, biases and lived experiences to the decision-making process.

If Im deeply honest, 10 years ago, I may have dismissed some allegations of racial harassment that I now would not. I would argue that my increased understanding of how racial harassment manifests would make me more objective. Others could argue that my increased understanding of racism was woke ideology brain-washing making me less objective.

Finding staff with the time, inclination, and specialist skills needed to analyse and weigh evidence appropriately to fill misconduct panels is a difficult task. Ensuring that the panel is also diverse, more so. Particularly when there is a risk of adding unpaid workload and mental burden to those with protected characteristics.

There is no national training scheme for misconduct panel members. (And given the expectations on these panels to adjudicate over cases of serious sexual misconduct, there really should be). Institutions are often doing their best to provide training, but having to develop a deep understanding of racism, homophobia, biphobia, religious- or belief-based harassment, ageism, ableism, sexism, and transphobia, starts to make these feel like they should be professionalised roles, rather than added on to someones already full workload.

An alternative option is to provide experts who advise the panels on why something may constitute harassment based on a particular characteristic. But these experts may be hard to find in small institutions and difficult to pull in from overstretched charities working in these fields.

It is, of course, possible, that someone could make an objective assessment about harassment based on a characteristic one does not have. But to expect this to be objective when the whole panel doesnt have this characteristic, they are provided with no expert voice on this, and have no training on this topic, seems a stretch morally, if not legally.

Recommendations:

Universities are being asked to preside over these incredibly complex cases of harassment and free speech, as well as undertaking quasi-judicial expectations when it comes to sexual misconduct cases. The associated workload, expectations, and risk (to students, staff, and institutions) will only increase as the two new conditions of registrations are implemented. One on harassment and sexual misconduct (expected in the coming months) and one on freedom of speech, expected in 2025. Expecting each institution to grapple with these issues individually will lead to a frustrating waste of resources and a postcode lottery of outcomes.

To undertake these duties, and to do them well, a national framework of training for misconduct panel members should be developed. This should cover:

Unfortunately, training on student misconduct decision making doesnt fit neatly into remit of any of the sector organisations. The OIA has the expertise on best practise, the OfS is taking an increasing role on regulation in this area and Advance HE offer training to the sector on other areas but not this one. Given their expertise, I would be thrilled to see the OIA take up this mantle but perhaps the discussion about where this vital provision should sit needs to be the first port of call.

Institutions should consider working regionally to develop staffing resources capable of undertaking the training needed to fulfil these roles. A wider pool of investigators and misconduct panel members may additionally increase diversity in this pool of staff.

Where is misconduct panel is not well-versed in a particular form of harassment, an expert voice should be sought to provide additional context.

Continued here:
Free speech in HE, part 1: We need to talk about objective harassment - Higher Education Policy Institute

Nov. 8, 2023

Dear Brandeis Community,

Monday, the university issued a decision to no longer recognize the Brandeis chapter of the National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). This decision was made because SJP openly supports Hamas, which the United States has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and its call for the violent elimination of Israel and the Jewish people.

Many people have asked about this decision and there has been some confusion about what is and is not permitted. We did not enter into this decision lightly. We are a university dedicated to ensuring free speech as outlined in Brandeis Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression. These principles state that the university may restrict expression that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. All students, faculty, and staff are welcome here, and encouraged to participate in the free exchange of ideas. To promote such free exchange, we must not and do not condone hate, the incitement of violence, or threats against or harassment of anyone, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Israeli, Palestinian, or any other religion or ethnicity.

I join those who are distressed by the loss of civilian life in Israel and in Gaza. Our faculty, staff, and student community members who wish to gather to express their support for the rights of Palestinians, or to acknowledge Palestinian deaths during the current Israel-Hamas war, are welcome to do so on our campus. They may do so as individuals, or they may seek to form student organizations through established procedures that comply with Brandeis policies.

It is critical that all students, and all of their diverse experiences and viewpoints, be allowed to engage in constructive dialogue and live together as a community, in an environment that is free of intimidation and harassment. A commitment to openness is one of Brandeis founding values, but that openness is challenged when speech is used to intimidate and silence others.

Sincerely,

Ron Liebowitz

Original post:
A space for free speech, not hate speech | Letters and Addresses ... - Brandeis University

To the Editor:

Re How Are Students Expected to Live Like This on Campuses?, by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, nytimes.com, Nov. 8):

Mr. Wegman is correct that universities cannot live up to their ideals as havens for unfettered debate when their Jewish students feel physically threatened. And he rightly suggests necessary limits on a culture of free speech, including prohibitions on harassment and targeting based on ethnic or religious identity.

But it is time for a broader interrogation of the vaunted Chicago Principles he cites, which hold that the only appropriate role for a university is to stay silent on matters of public controversy so that its constituents may fully debate it.

I believe that a more important principle for a university arguably its fundamental principle is to seek and articulate truth. And in this case, the truth is clear: Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, that is not representative of the Palestinian people as a whole.

To the extent the Chicago Principles prevent universities from stating that truth, they make honest debate more difficult, stain all pro-Palestinian students with the repugnant reputation of Hamas, and undermine university administrators ability to isolate and combat real antisemitism on campuses.

There is no doubt that free expression is a paramount value in universities. But we can aspire higher. We can build our bastions of free speech on the foundational layers of moral clarity and intellectual integrity.

(Rabbi) Ari Berman New York The writer is president of Yeshiva University.

To the Editor:

Re What Is Happening on College Campuses Is Not Free Speech, by Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 11):

Protecting free speech on campus requires bravery and intellectual honesty, not partisan definitions. As Jewish students, we share in the real fear surrounding the rise of violent threats against our communities. Yet, this fear cannot be addressed with definitions that marginalize legitimate Palestinian advocacy.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism that the authors cite, which refers to rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism, is opposed even by several progressive, pro-Israel and Jewish organizations. Such critiques correctly cite the definitions potential to suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.

Institutions of higher education should, of course, address antisemitism; yet, adopting this broad definition would come at the expense of students and professors fundamental rights to free expression. Regardless of how uncomfortable certain phrases may make us, disagreements surrounding terminology and definitions must not be equated with the very real dangers of death threats, hate speech and physical violence.

Upholding free speech requires empathy and consistency, and we must understand that intimidation and fear on campuses are real, and they are not felt only or even primarily by Jewish students.

Eliana Blumberg Rita Feder Michael Farrell-Rosen Providence, R.I. The writers are students at Brown University.

To the Editor:

Re At College, Debating When Speech Goes Too Far (front page, Nov. 11):

A key role of higher education is to nurture students intellectually and emotionally as they develop their ethical and moral compasses. Just as alumni have threatened to pull financial support of schools that do not call out terror and take a stance on antisemitism, members of university boards must require similar action.

As a member of a university board of trustees whose president has publicly spoken up for morality and truth, and as an American who is shocked to see scenes unfolding that are reminiscent of 1930s Europe, I challenge all the university boards in the country to raise their voices and make their leadership accountable for what is happening on their campuses.

There is zero tolerance for racism and zero tolerance for harassment of any kind on todays campuses, and we should not rest until there is zero tolerance for antisemitism. Colleges should be places where truth is sought and where everyone feels safe. University leaders must step up and lead by example by first speaking up and then creating an action plan to combat hate and antisemitism.

Lawrence D. Platt Los Angeles The writer is a member of the board of trustees of Touro University.

To the Editor:

If college students directed this sort of hate speech against Black or Asian or L.G.B.T.Q. people, they would most likely be expelled or at least suspended. The fact that they arent speaks to the moral cowardice of university administrators.

Joshua Rosenbaum Brooklyn

Read more:
Opinion | Speech and Antisemitism on Campus - The New York Times

By Aviva Presser Aiden 11/10/23 6:07pm

Editors Note: This is a letter to the editor that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. Letters to the editor are fact-checked to the best of our ability and edited for grammar and spelling by Thresher editors.

In the article All out for Palestine protest sees 2,000 at Houston City Hall from Oct. 17, Associate Vice Provost Catherine Clack discusses the Rice Students for Justice in Palestine sign-making event at the Multicultural Center in the wake of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. She states ... how is this something that we should oppose when it's an exercise of free speech?

I respect the complexity of issues related to the Middle East and recognize the importance of representing a spectrum of views. But while free speech is a cornerstone of academic discourse, it is imperative that we distinguish between fostering open dialogue and supporting dangerous rhetoric.

The slogan From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free, prominently displayed in the group's signage, was popularized in the 1960s by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It helped the PLO recognized at the time as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department amplify its calls for the dismantling of the state of Israel. As the Palestinian National Charter of 1968 said, Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate [i.e., from the river to the sea], is an indivisible territorial unit Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history.

The official policy of Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization which conducted the Oct. 7 attacks, includes the slogan almost verbatim. Hamas 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies states, Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Other signs read Resistance is not Terrorism, and Resistance is Justified. They seem to cast the Oct. 7 Hamas attack as legitimate resistance. Osama Bin Ladens Letter to America used that rationale to justify 9/11. Attacks targeting civilians, even labeled as resistance, are unequivocally acts of terrorism. Such actions should never find endorsement or support within our community, even under the banner of free speech.

Enjoy what you're reading? Sign up for our newsletter

Originally posted here:
Letter to the Editor: Free speech at Rice should support open ... - The Rice Thresher

Samson Cournane, a third-year student majoring in computer science at the University of Maine, has been accused of defamation. Currently, he is facing legal backlash in response to a change.org petition and letter to the editor published in the Maine Campus on Oct. 28, 2022.

Cournane was seeking signatures to raise public attention to the need for patient welfare accountability at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC). His mother, board-certified critical care pediatrician Dr. Anne Yered, voiced first-hand safety concerns to hospital administration while employed at EMMC in 2021. Shortly thereafter, she was allegedly terminated without legitimate cause.

Yered, alongside other physicians, was witness to multiple safety violations at the medical institution. It was brought to her attention that the Medical Director of the Pediatric ICU at EMMC only completed one-third of a necessary critical care fellowship. Healthcare workers are not typically authorized to assume a predominant role without receiving a full education in preparation for the position.

Upon later investigation, Cournane took notice of an alarming staff-to-patient ratio, considering EMMC being ranked as the second-largest hospital in Maine. Though a shortage of nurses is a commonly considered problem, physicians cannot provide complete treatment to those admitted in critical condition without forsaking the care of other patients in turn.

Cournane initially tried to set up a table for his petition at UMaine. He was encouraged by the Assistant Director for Campus Activities Benjamin Evans to have a conversation with hospital public relations beforehand. Evans also suggested that these efforts revolve more around Leapfrog, a nonprofit organization that collects data on patient safety for transparency.

The Senior Vice President and Chief Quality Officer of EMMC, Dr. Navneet Marwaha, originally arranged an opportunity for Cournane to communicate grievances before creating his petition. However, the hospital administration did not follow through with their arrangement by reasoning that his concerns could not be taken into account due to the litigation involving Yered. After receiving potential misinformation about UMaines tabling policy, Cournane eventually set up a petition online.

The date and time were set and agreed upon, but Northern Light abruptly canceled the meeting. I went back to the university to see if I could get a table and was told it would cost me $250 each time I wanted to use it, said Cournane.

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), or getting sued for speaking out, potentially threatens freedom of speech. According to Article 1 Section 4 of the Maine Constitution, Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of this liberty; no laws shall be passed regulating or restraining the freedom of the press.

Abuses of free speech are categorized under obscenity, death threats, incitement to violence or defamation. However, First Amendment rights only apply to governmental censorship, meaning that an individual or conglomerate can claim abuse with even a baseline scope of probable cause.

Defamation is a false statement publicized with the intention of damaging the reputation of a third party. The tort of defamation considers two components. One is slander, otherwise known as spoken character assassination, and the second is libel, written character assassination. Cournanes petition and letter would fall under the latter if proven in a court of law. One aspect to bear in mind is that the truth is a widely accepted defense to such allegations.

To sue for prima facie, or at first sight defamation, the plaintiff must prove that a statement made was false but purported as fact, published or communicated to a third person, derived from negligence or malice, and finally, that the statement causes concrete damage or harm to the person or entity mentioned.

Cournane is represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). According to the case overview, EMMC is also suing under the false conjecture that Yered instigated her sons decision to initiate public outreach. FIRE wrote, Although meritless, the threat of defending against a costly defamation suit had the desired chilling effect: Samson ceased his advocacy.

Cournane will be giving a presentation on his experience at the Maine Youth Leadership Conference in Augusta. It will be live-streamed, and registration is free.

See the article here:
Free speech of UMaine student allegedly threatened by an ... - The Maine Campus

About 60 Ann Arbor community members gathered in the Honigman Auditorium at the University of Michigan Law School for the 33rd annual Davis, Markert, Nickerson Lecture Thursday afternoon. The lecture was hosted by the U-M Faculty Senate and focused on educational gag orders and state censorship.

Johnathan Friedman, the director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works for the protection of creative expression was the guest lecturer at the event. Friedman spoke about the threat of censorship in public education and made suggestions for promoting academic freedom on college campuses.

The DMN lecture is named after three former U-M faculty members Chandler Davis, Clement Markert and Mark Nickerson. The men were suspended from the University for declining to answer questions on their political associations in 1954 when they testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, as they alleged to have been communists during the time of the Red Scare.

Introductory remarks of the lecture were made by associate history professor Melanie Tanielian and Elizabeth Moje, dean of the Marsal Family School of Education. Tanielian opened the lecture with an initial discussion of academic freedom and speech.

At the heart of academic freedom is the protection of free and open inquiry, including expression of controversial ideas that some may consider wrong or offensive, Tanielian said. Academic freedom not only protects faculty speech and teaching, research and institutional decision-making, it protects the right to address the larger community.

While talking about academic freedom, Tanielian emphasized the importance of factoring current global events into these conversations, specifically the ongoing impacts of the Israel-Hamas war.

Taking the stage, Friedman started his lecture by proposing questions regarding freedom of expression, free speech and academic freedom.

Now, in order to think and talk about academic freedom, and to talk about this moment that were in, its critical that we start with, What do we mean when we talk about free speech? Friedman said. What is academic freedom anyways? Is academic freedom free speech, and what the heck is free expression? These questions circle. Im going to try and make it as simple as possible, they all blur into one another.

Friedman continued with how academic freedom relates to international human rights and patriotism.

Friedman also discussed being uncomfortable in university settings when academic freedom is restricted, such as when books and media that reference LGBTQ+ rights or Black history are banned. He said he believes these feelings can be useful in sparking conversations regarding disagreeable issues in academic discourse.

We have to find some way of encouraging universities to be places where we might not all agree, we might not get closure on (issues), we might not solve the issues, but lets talk about it, Friedman said. Lets listen to each other a little bit.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, LSA junior Dana Minor attended the event and shared why she believes free speech can be effective.

Free speech is a murky area only because everyone wants it totally applied in their favor, Minor said. The only way that it can be effective is if we are objective and neutral about it and let everyone express themselves. Let free speech actually be free speech, rather than tailoring it to our biases.

Daily Staff Reporter Ellen Drejza can be reached at edrejza@umich.edu. Daily News Contributor Anushka Patil can be reached at panushka@umich.edu.

Originally posted here:
UMich faculty speak on academic freedom and free speech - The Michigan Daily