Category Archives: Free Speech

Emil Herman, a Seattle socialist, made an open threat to carry on a free-speech war in Spokane, backed by the Socialist Party.

Herman appeared before the Spokane City Council to ask for permits to hold street meetings on Stevens Street between Main and Trent avenues. He intended to address crowds on the subject of amnesty for political prisoners.

The council rejected Hermans request.

You are making a mistake to deny the right of free speech and we may be forced to speak without permission, Herman replied.

Spokane was no stranger to the issue. It was the center of a famous Wobbly free speech fight in 1909-1910, and city leaders were clearly not anxious to repeat that kind of street disruption. Yet they were also in no mood to be threatened.

Let me tell you something, Herman, council member Charles Fleming said. We are not denying you nor anyone else the right of free speech. There is a $100,000 stadium down here, provided for just such purposes, and if you desire to speak there I have no doubt permission would be gladly given.

From the aviation beat: Daisy Smith, Spokanes sole woman aviator, was still in St. Lukes Hospital after her near-fatal airplane crash two months earlier.

She was reported to be recovering well, and might be able to leave her bed within the next few weeks.

More here:
100 years ago in Spokane: The stakes were high for the city to avoid ... - The Spokesman Review

In other words, Princetons culture for free expression is getting worse, and a large portion of Princeton students feel intimidated by the idea of sharing their opinions on issues considered controversial.

Beyond students self-reported hesitancy to share their opinions, the survey reveals that Princeton students support for free speech culture is tenuous at best. For example, when asked which best describes their view of what speech should be allowed on campus, about half of students (48%) said that any speech that uses discriminatory language or that a group or class of persons finds offensive or hurtful should not be allowed.

Just 30% said all speech that would be protected by the First Amendment should be allowed.

Princeton students also expressed a willingness to censor not only visiting speakers, but also their own classmates: 40% of students said that an athletic team should be able to deny a spot to, or suspend, a student who expresses views others find offensive.

PFS cofounder Ed Yingling noted that these actions against students would clearly violate the universitys rules, yet many students showed a surprising willingness to punish their fellow students for expressing unpopular opinions.

In more positive news, students seem to be taking notice of Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgrubers recent free speech-affirming statements. In FIREs 2022 College Free Speech Rankings, 27% of students surveyed said that Princetons stance on free speech was not very or not at all clear, compared to 12% in the PFS survey done a year later.

Still, as Yingling said, and as much of the other survey data indicates, There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality; most Princeton students neither support nor understand basic free speech principles. Indeed, just 18% of students said they were very familiar with Princetons free speech rules.

Yingling desires to provide opportunities for students to discover that free speech protections are meant to benefit them by ensuring their right to learn, ask questions, and express themselves openly.

To reverse this trend in the coming years, alumni have their work cut out for them. Whatever it takes, well be standing with them for the expressive rights of the Princeton community.

Despite gaps in student knowledge about free expression, not all hope is lost. Students reported a strong desire to witness open debate on campus:

The marching orders for Princeton University and the Princeton Free Speech Alliance are straightforward: Host on-campus debates that show the power of dialogue through disagreements.

Already, Yingling has pledged, on behalf of PFS, that the organization will continue to do its part to improve the climate for free speech on campus by supporting faculty and students who exercise free speech, providing educational materials to students, and sponsoring programs and debates that model open discourse.

To follow up on verbal commitments to free expression by Princetons president and the schools adoption of the Chicago Statement an excellent free speech commitment for colleges and universities Princeton should consider revising its speech codes. The university still receives FIREs worst, red light, rating because its Guidelines for Compliance with the Acceptable Use Policy both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.

To reverse this trend in the coming years, alumni have their work cut out for them. Whatever it takes, well be standing with them for the expressive rights of the Princeton community.

Read more:
Princetonians for Free Speech launch a new survey to measure the success of free speech advocacy - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Several far-right politicians in France have criticised statements from the European Commission and the French government that they would be willing to ban Twitter if it does not comply with EU regulation on societal risks and disinformation.

Jean-Nol Barrot, French Minister for Digital Affairs, stated in an interview with the newspaper Le Figaro on Monday (29 May) that he would be ready to ban Twitter in case of non-compliance with EU legislation.

Barrots comments came in reaction to Twitters announcement that it will withdraw from the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, a voluntary agreement that gathers all major social media platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok.

While the Code is non-binding, keeping up with its voluntary commitments is a way to anticipate the Digital Services Act (DSA), which next year will start to apply a particularly strict regime for large online platforms like Twitter to manage societal risks like disinformation.

Breaching the DSA can lead to fines of up to 6% of the companys global annual turnover and a blanket ban from the EU market in cases of repeated non-compliance. Following the decision, Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton warned Twitter: Youcan run, but you cant hide.

While Barrot acknowledged that Twitter indeed plays a major role in the public discourse, the Minister emphasised that the French governments position aligns with that of the Commissioner.

Twitter told the European Commission it is seriously considering withdrawing from the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, a voluntary agreement that preludes upcoming binding rules, EU officials told EURACTIV.

The announcement of Twitters withdrawal from the code would come as

The unsuccessful far-right candidate for Reconqute in the 2022 French presidential election, Eric Zemmour, expressed his opposition towards Barrots position, calling him and Breton censors who wanted to silence any free speech.

Marion Marchal, niece of Marine Le Pen and executive vice-president of the Reconqute party, used the same descriptions for Barrot and Breton in a tweet and added that they were centrist extremists with totalitarian reflexes.

Florian Philippot, leader of the party Les Patriotes and former vice-president of the Le Pens far-right National Front (FN, now RN) also stated in a tweet that Barrots position was extremely serious and added that France was no longer a democracy.

Barrot replied to Zemmours tweet, saying that freedom of expression is neither a right to disinformation nor a right to provoke racial or religious hatred, in a reference to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in January that confirmed the conviction of Zemmour for inciting religious hatred.

Billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter in April 2022, coming in as a self-styled defender of freedom of expression. Under Musks new leadership, he reinstated several controversial accounts that were previously banned from the platform, including that of former US President Donald Trump in November of the same year.

Another result of Musks more libertarian approach is content moderation, for which Twitter has shifted toward community-led Community Notes. Media reports have associated Twitters new management with a rise in right-wing extremism on the platform.

Another question raised is if Twitter will exit the EU voluntarily. Since Europe is only a secondary market for the platform, some have speculated that the cost of compliance with EU regulations might exceed the benefits. More cynical observers have even hypothesised that a clash with woke Europe might be instrumental in Musks political agenda.

[Edited by Luca Bertuzzi/Nathalie Weatherald]

Here is the original post:
Potential Twitter ban sparks controversy over freedom of speech in France - EURACTIV

Codi Lazar, an associate professor of geological sciences at California State University, San Bernardino, has been concerned for some time about the trend toward censorship in higher education.

The state of academic freedom and free speech on college and university campuses is, indeed, unsettling. FIREs report, The Academic Mind in 2022: What Faculty Think About Free Expression and Academic Freedom on Campus, found that 40% of liberal faculty are afraid of losing their jobs or reputations due to their speech and 2 in 5 faculty self-censor more now than they did in 2020.

In an interview with FIRE, Lazar described the struggle for academic freedom and free speech on campus as a battle between two intellectual spheres at the university one which values free inquiry, open debate, open conversations, [and] free speech versus one which teaches a particular brand of political activism and suppresses free speech and open inquiry when they are deemed harmful.

Lazar believes that once a schools administration decides that it is the role of the university to protect people from harmful words, it is no longer doing the work of a university. He pointed out that such policing on the administrative level means that the universities are [becoming] places where discourse is not welcome on certain [topics] and that those who disagree with mainstream views regarding these topics are fundamentally bad people.

I dont think anyone should be in charge [of what views people can express], Lazar said. Thats not a university anymore.

It got to the point where I felt like I had to do something. And he did.

In fall 2021, Lazar researched public lists of faculty who are members of, or signed open letters for, organizations like Heterodox Academy and the Independent Institute, and he reached out to professors on those lists within the California State University system, the largest four-year university system in the county. He described to them his concern that faculty members feel they cant speak up about particular topics and he expressed his desire to connect with like-minded faculty in the Cal State system to fight back against this trend.

He received an enthusiastic response, and the groups first meeting was a great success. About their first Zoom call, Lazar said, For the first time, most people there were in a room full of people where they could really say what was on their mind about certain things.

During the winter and spring semesters of 2022, the group put together a systemwide open letter in support of academic freedom, which was published in June 2022. It garnered more than 240 signatures from faculty across the Cal State system.

Lazar hopes that C-FAF can serve as a model and an inspiration for other faculty in the United States who are concerned about the state of free speech and academic freedom on their campuses and are looking for ways to fight censorship.

By the time the letter was published, this group had grown into a solid body of faculty who met regularly to discuss academic freedom at Cal State schools. Their commitment inspired Lazar to form a steering committee with five other faculty, who named the group the CSU Faculty for Academic Freedom, or C-FAF.

Lazar says that his involvement in C-FAF has inspired him to voice his opinions. Just knowing that there are other faculty within the Cal State system who staunchly support free speech and academic freedom has enabled him not to feel alone and to express his ideas to his colleagues, even when he disagrees with them.

The whole experience has really empowered me to start speaking my mind, Lazar said. I realized that [our goal] is not just to defend academic freedom but [to] set it up psychologically so that we can practice academic freedom.

He talked about conversations hes had with his colleagues who have described to him their reluctance to express disagreement with school policy or with mainstream opinions about other hot-button issues. That kind of culture of self-censorship, he said, is not sustainable for a university.

The guides language will chill faculty speech, as faculty might rationally conclude they should self-censor to avoid any possibility of being reported for perceived racial slights.

Read More

So if theres one thing that we can do, Lazar explained, its just connecting with people, saying its okay to say whats on your mind.

C-FAFs steering committee has a number of goals, including:

Ultimately, Lazar hopes that C-FAF can serve as a model and an inspiration for other faculty in the United States who are concerned about the state of free speech and academic freedom on their campuses and are looking for ways to fight censorship.

I hope that people self-organize on campuses to help make sure that their voices are heard, Lazar said. It feels good to connect people there are people out there, and its a wonderful feeling emailing someone youve never met before and their response is, I cant express how happy I am to hear from you.

Check out C-FAFs website to read more about the group and all of their current plans.

FIRE is hosting a webinar about academic freedom on June 7! Codi Lazar will be on the panel, along with Executive Director of the Council of Academic Freedom at Harvard Flynn Cratty, associate professor of history at Carleton College Amna Khalid, and FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. Register here.

Go here to read the rest:
Cal State faculty stand up for academic freedom and free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

At Princetons 276th Commencement on Tuesday, May 30, President Christopher L. Eisgruber encouraged graduating students to let your voices rise to protect two important values: free speech and equality.

We must stand up and speak up together for the values of free expression and full inclusivity for people of all identities, Eisgruber said, followed by rousing applause from the students, families, friends and other guests seated inside Princeton Stadium.

The University awarded 1,265 undergraduate degrees and 679 graduate degrees during the ceremony on Tuesday, May 30.

These constitutional ideals are complementary of not in competition with one another and we have a responsibility to protect them, Eisgruber added.

To all of you who receive your undergraduate or graduate degree from Princeton University today: Your help is urgently needed now! he said. So, as you go forth from this University, let your voices rise. Let them rise for equality. Let them rise for the value of diversity. Let them rise for freedom, for justice, and for love among the people of this earth.

Eisgrubers remarks came during the ceremony held on a picturesque spring morning where the University awarded 1,265 undergraduate degrees and 679 graduate degrees.

The event capped days of campus celebrations, including Reunions for alumni, Baccalaureate featuring an address by philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, Class Day with a speech by U.S. Rep. and Class of 1986 graduate Terri Sewell, and Hooding for masters and doctoral degree candidates. The ROTC Commissioning ceremony was held Tuesday afternoon and included remarks by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a Class of 1980 graduate.

I have to say I think weve had the best weather for Reunions and Commencement in the history of Princeton University. And for what youve been through for the last four years, you deserve it, Eisgruber said, referring to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic during the Class of 2023s first years at Princeton.

1

Guests keep cool with sun hats decorated with orange and black ribbons.

2

Seniors decorate their caps with tiger tails.

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

In his Commencement address, Eisgruber explained the connection between the landmark Supreme Court free speech case New York Times vs. Sullivan and the civil rights work of the late entertainer Harry Belafonte.

Belafonte was one of the principal fundraisers for Martin Luther King Jr.s civil rights campaigns and he received an honorary degree from Princeton in 2015 in honor of his social activism and humanitarian work.

During the 1960s, Belafonte had a leadership role in the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom. The Supreme Courts 1964 Sullivan ruling centered on a newspaper advertisement funded by the committee.

The Supreme Court thereby, suddenly and in a single decision, created one of the most speech-protective legal doctrines in history and, for that matter, in the world today, said Eisgruber, who is also a renowned constitutional scholar.

"When people talk about free speech rights in America, they often depict them as the legacy of the American founding in the 18thcentury, or as the product of elegant dissents authored by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis in the early 20thcentury," he said. "Without meaning any disrespect to the Constitutions framers or to those legendary justices, this much is clear: the expansive, legally enforceable free speech rights that Americans cherish today first emerged in the 1960s during and because of the fight for racial justice in the South, a fight whose leaders included Black student activists."

Shifting to the present day, Eisgruber expressed his deep concern over efforts to drive a wedge between the constitutional ideals of equality and free speech.

There are people who claim, for example, that when colleges and universities endorse the value of diversity and inclusivity or teach about racism and sexism, they are indoctrinating students or in some other way endangering free speech. That is wrong, Eisgruber said, followed by more enthusiastic applause from the crowd.

Speaking to the students seated before him in rows of chairs on Powers Field, Eisgruber concluded: Wherever your individual journeys lead you in the years ahead, I hope that you also continue to travel together, as classmates and as alumni of this University, in pursuit of a better world. All of us on this platform have great confidence in your ability to take on the challenge. We applaud your persistence, your talent, your achievements, your values and your aspirations.

Princeton graduate students gather for a selfie before the ceremony begins.

Photo by

Charles Sykes, Associated Press Images for Princeton University

His theme of active involvement was also invoked by valedictorian Aleksa Milojevi, a mathematics major from Belgrade, Serbia. Milojevi spoke of how he and his peers had been actively nurtured by the full Princeton community. He reminded them to practice active appreciation themselves, both of others and of the everyday wonders in their lives.

Whether its actively enjoying campus or actively loving our community, I believe activeengagement was central to my Princeton experience and I suspect many of you feel the same, he said. Even academically and professionally, I believe it is important to enjoy what we are doing, as we are doing it.

He concluded: As you carve your future, I hope you will actively love those around you, as the people on this campus loved us!

Annabelle Duval, a history major from Rhinebeck, New York, delivered the traditional Latin salutatory address, tracing the Class of 2023s undergraduate career from the challenges of remote learning during the pandemic to the joys of celebrating the mens and womens basketball teams during March Madness.

This chaotic time we will remember for countless years. Friends, let us always preserve these dear friendships, formed by many nights in Firestone Library, and may the spirit of the tiger always be with us! Duval said, as translated to English.

During Commencement, Princeton presented honorary degrees to five distinguished guests:

The ceremony also included recognition of the winners of the Presidents Awards for Distinguished Teaching, which honors Princeton faculty with sustained records of excellence in teaching undergraduates and graduate students, as well as the recipients of the Princeton Prize for Distinguished Secondary School Teaching, which is given to outstanding teachers from secondary schools in New Jersey.

After the ceremony concluded, students made their way from the stadium to FitzRandolph Gate at the front of campus. It is a Princeton tradition for undergraduates to walk out the center gate only after theyve graduated, and a stream of joyous graduates took the opportunity to appreciate their place in the Universitys long history.

Visit Princetons YouTube channel to re-watch graduation events, and follow #Princeton23 on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for more highlights, photos and videos.

Commencement capped off three days of celebratory end-of-year events for undergraduate and graduate degree candidates.

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

A Class of 2023 jacket is seen among the crowd in Princeton Stadium.

A Princeton senior laughs during the salutatory address.

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

Princeton seniors wear stoles from the Pan-African graduation ceremony, which was among various cultural and affinity group celebrations held as part of Commencement events on campus.

Photo by

Charles Sykes, Associated Press Images for Princeton University

Class of 2023 graduates Daniel Diaz-Bonilla (second from left) and Sammy Popper (far right) celebrate with Diaz-Bonilla's siblings, Clara (left) and Christian (second from right).

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

Class of 2023 graduate Rena Kashari (center) stands with her parents, Najwa Khojah (left) and Khalid Kashari (right).

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

Seniors walk through FitzRandolph Gate at the front of campus after Commencement.

Photo by

Denise Applewhite, Office of Communications

Mortar boards are thrown in the air by members of Princeton's Class of 2023.

Photo by

Charles Sykes, Associated Press Images for Princeton University

Visit link:
Graduates at Princeton's 2023 Commencement are called to action ... - Princeton University

The Freedom of Speech : Throughline Book bans, disinformation, the wild world of the internet. Free speech debates are all around us. What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they created the First Amendment, and how have the words they wrote in the 18th century been stretched and shaped to fit a world they never could have imagined? It's a story that travels through world wars and culture wars. Through the highest courts and the Ku Klux Klan. What exactly is free speech, and how has the answer to that question changed in the history of the U.S.?

Volunteers help roll up a giant banner printed with the Preamble to the United States Constitution during a demonstration against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling at the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall October 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

Volunteers help roll up a giant banner printed with the Preamble to the United States Constitution during a demonstration against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling at the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall October 20, 2010 in Washington, DC.

Book bans, disinformation, the wild world of the internet. Free speech debates are all around us.What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they created the First Amendment, and how have the words they wrote in the 18th century been stretched and shaped to fit a world they never could have imagined? It's a story that travels through world wars and culture wars. Through the highest courts and the Ku Klux Klan. What exactly is free speech, and how has the answer to that question changed in the history of the U.S.?

Here is the original post:
The Freedom of Speech : Throughline - NPR

On May 21 I officiated at my 18th and final Commencement ceremony as president of Boston University. It was an unruly affair. David Zaslav, president and CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery and our alumnus, was our Commencement speaker and an honorary degree recipient, invited long before the ongoing strike by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) began on May 2. Not surprisingly, there were protesters both outside and inside our ceremony, as the leaders of the media business are at the focus of the labor dispute.

Some graduating students stood and turned their backs to the speaker and displayed signs. There were organized chants imploring Mr. Zaslav to pay his writers. For a university committed to free speech, protests are appropriate and common. The right to protest and freely express strongly held convictions is essential to sustaining the liberal democracy that we enjoy.

The protesters were a minority among the 23,000 people assembled on Nickerson Field. Students and guests applauded and cheered Mr. Zaslav as he described his life journey and offered advice to the graduates. Others listened respectfully. As it should be, Boston University is a noisy place of frequent, vigorous debate and discussion and where no one monolithic point of view dominates.

But what we witnessed on Nickerson Field during Commencement veered, regrettably, in a different direction. A handful of students shouted obscenities at Mr. Zaslav. I flinched, as my reaction harkened back to my teen years, over half a century ago, on the south side of San Antonio, Tex. In that era, shouting the words that I heard from the field would be the precursor to a fistfight. I cant imagine how Mr. Zaslav felt hearing these obscenities directed at him. I have apologized to Mr. Zaslav for the behavior of these students.

The attempt to silence a speaker with obscene shouts is a resort to gain power, not reason, and antithetical to the mission and purposes of a university.

Our students were not picking a fight. They were attempting to implement the cancel culture that has become all too prevalent on university campuses. The hundreds of virtually identical protest emails we received in my office in advance of Commencement came with an explicit cancel hashtag, indicating an aim to prevent Mr. Zaslav from speaking. The attempt to silence a speaker with obscene shouts is a resort to gain power, not reason, and antithetical to the mission and purposes of a university.

The students who were appallingly coarse and deliberately abusive to Mr. Zaslav were entitled to attend Commencement because they were being awarded degrees that they earned from Boston University. They sought to make a statement, out of passionate conviction, but in the moment, they forgot that in a liberal democracy, personal autonomy and freedom of speech come with responsibilities. One responsibility, particularly in an institution for which freedom of speech is the oxygen that sustains our mission, is respect for the speech rights of others. The deliberate effort to silence a speaker is at odds with this fundamental value. I am disappointed that some members of our graduating student body seem painfully unawareor perhaps even hostile tothis idea.

I am also disappointed at the insensitivity to our many guestsespecially parents and grandparentswho came from far and wide to celebrate the success of a cherished relative. The willingness to spoil the occasion for these literally thousands of guests to not only make a point, but also literally prevent the speaker from conveying his message, was painful and embarrassing to witness. I would stress that from my vantage pointand that of othersthe individuals behaving badly constituted a small minority.But that fact does not diminish my disappointment.

On reflection, it seems to me that the incivility on Nickerson Field is indicative of the divisions in our country. People shouting anonymously at each other, accomplishing nothing but feeling gratified for doing so, while generating material to post on social media. In our specific case the shouters infringed on the rights of othersto be heard or, more simply, to celebrate a milestone for a new graduate in a ceremony not disfigured with obscenities. We must do better and be a place where freedom of speech and the vital instrument of lawful protest can coexist and foster every individuals sense of belonging.

Read the original here:
POV: A Lesson from BU's 150th Commencement | BU Today - Boston University

Fox News host Jesse Watters calls out censorship of Americans on "Jesse Watters Primetime."

JESSE WATTERS: Not everything's about money except on CNBC. On CNBC, everything is about money. Censoring the laptop, the lab leak was all about money. Follow the money all the way to China. Now, here's a concept that maybe CNBC can understand. You can have money and free speech. You guys ever think of that? You can have both. Now, I know CNBC usually interviews CEOs that, you know, if they think they could make a billion dollars they'd rip their own vocal cords out. But Elon Musk isn't a traditional CEO.

TESLA TEASES NEXT MODEL THAT ELON MUSK SAYS WILL SELL IN THE MILLIONS

Musk is like an advanced technology developer. He's a product genius, a software creator. His brain doesn't worry about what everybody else thinks. He doesn't have the time for that. Plus, Musk made so much money, he doesn't care. Hedoesn't have to hold his tongue to keep his wealth. Now, the problem with the United States right now is that the more truth you tell or the bolder you are, the more you put your money at risk. Not everybody has the luxury of free speech anymore. Cancel culture killed it.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Now, everybody won't be able to make enough money to speak freely. Okay, I accept that. So, we need to take the mob out, get our voices back and Elon speaks for all of us. Kind of like Trump did before he got censored. Biden's lost his mind, Soros is a villain and the last election wasn't that fair. Everybody knows it, but a lot of people would rather be rich liars thanhonest and broke. But that's a choice we shouldn't have to make and thankfully, Elon Musk is breaking us out of that box.

Originally posted here:
JESSE WATTERS: Not everybody has the luxury of free speech anymore - Fox News

Updated on May 16, 2023, at 5:31 p.m. ET

Since the earliest days of the war in Ukraine, much of the Western world has become squeamish about Russian art. Tchaikovsky would not be played. Russian literature was kept high on the shelf. Moscows famous Bolshoi Ballet was disinvited from touring abroad.

Such boycotts have only increased in intensity, and in ways that demonstrate how wartime assaults on freedom can ripple far outside the conflict zonewhere the sound of war is not that of bombs detonating but of piercing silence. Now the impulse to censor anyone Russian has arrived in the United States, at a venue that is designed toof all thingschampion and promote freedom of speech and expression: PEN Americas annual World Voices festival. It has also led, quite precipitously, to the writer Masha Gessens decision to resign as the vice president of PENs board of directors.

This past Saturday, as part of the festival, Gessen was set to moderate a panel showcasing writers in exile, two of them, like Gessen, Russian-born authors who had left their country in disgust. But a day before the event, ticket holders received an email saying that because of unforeseen circumstances the panel had been canceled. Their money would be refunded. No other explanation was offered and any trace of the event disappeared from PENs program online.

A small delegation of Ukrainian writers, who participated in a panel planned for the same day as the canceled Gessen event, had declared they could not attend a festival that included Russians. Because two of the writers, Artem Chapeye and Artem Chekh, are active-duty soldiers in the Ukrainian army, they argued that there were legal and ethical restrictions against their participation. Chapeye, a writer whose short story The Ukraine was recently published in The New Yorker, texted with me from a bus on his way back to Ukraine. He didnt see himself as having boycotted the Russians. It was simply that their presence was incompatible with his. The Russian participants decided to cancel their event themselves because we as active soldiers were not able to participate under the same umbrella, he wrote.

Chapeye said he couldnt make distinctions between good Russians and bad Russians in this case. Until the war ends, he wrote to me, a soldier can not be seen with the good Russians.

I spoke with Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of PEN, who described the events of recent days as a tough situation, in which the Ukrainians presented themselves as being imperiled if they took part. Nossel told me shed offered to have Gessens event take place under different auspices, not the World Voices festival, though at the same venue and at the same time. But in the end, as she put it, that was not an option.

To Gessen, it was abundantly clear that PEN had been blackmailed by the Ukrainians. And while Gessen empathized with the Ukrainians position and their cause, the proposed rebranding of the event seemed absurd. I felt like I was being asked to tell these people that because theyre Russians they cant sit at the big table; they have to sit at the little table off to the side, Gessen told me. Which felt distasteful.

The organization, Gessen said, had already tried to anticipate certain sensitivities. The notion, for example, of doing any kind of Russian-Ukrainian dialogue was out of the question. Gessen understood that this would be akin to implying moral equivalency when one side is clearly the aggressor. For this reason, the two events were kept separate. For Ukrainians, who point out that Russia has been trying to extinguish their national identity for centuries, the war has been a chance to assert on an international stage that their voices need to be heard. Gessen was aware of how this urge had been expressed elsewhere in the literary world. Just a few days before, at a literary festival in Estonia, a Ukrainian writer, Olena Huseinova, had conveyed her distress at the presence of a Russian-born poet, writing an open letter suggesting what she would do in her place: I find myself compelled to confess that were I to embody a Russian poet, my tongue and my language would sink into a weighty stillness, as if lifeless and bereft of motion deep within me. Probably, nowhere else would I belong, except within this silence and void. The Russian poet was put on a plane and sent home from the festival.

Gessen, who uses they/them pronouns, said they could understand Ukrainians acting in this way. After all, the Ukrainians country had been invaded, hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens brutally murderedthe desire to be cruel to Russians was perfectly comprehensible. But Gessen expected a different response from PEN.

Its up to people whose country hasnt been invaded, whose relatives havent been disappeared, whose houses are not being bombed, to say there are certain things we dont dowe dont silence people, Gessen said. Were a freedom-of-expression organization. Im not blaming the Ukrainians for this.

I cant look my Russian colleagues in the eye, they added. I cant serve on the board when I feel like this organization did something that it shouldnt do.

Its not the first time that PEN has struggled with the question of how to balance a commitment to freedom of speech with other political pressures. The incident brings to mind a protest in 2015 from a couple dozen writers, including Joyce Carol Oates and Francine Prose, who took issue with PENs decision to give a free-speech award to Charlie Hebdo. The satirical French magazine had been the target of a terrorist attack that left 12 people dead and 11 more injured. But the dissenting writers didnt think it was right to award a publication that had caricatured Muslims. There is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression, read the writers letter. The suggestion was that free speech should be supportedincluding Charlie Hebdos anarchic expressions of disdain toward organized religionjust not always so loudly. In the end, PEN stood by its award, presenting it to the surviving Charlie Hebdo editors, who were protected by armed guards.

Gessen said there is a lot of debate internally at PEN about the boundaries of free speech, and does not personally identify as a free-speech absolutist. We regulate speech in this country all the time, Gessen said. We could have a much more meaningful discussion if we accepted that we regulate speech and talked about why and how we do it.

The problem in this instance was that the decision to sideline the Russian participants came not as the result of deliberation, but rather in response to an ultimatum delivered by the Ukrainians, one that left no room for debate. In the end the Russian presence appeared as if it were a stain that had to be quickly covered up. Even if the panel remained on the website with a canceled stamp on it or something, even that would be less tragic than what happened, Gessen said. But to just have it vanish? Its almost a literal silencing.

For PEN leadership, the entire situation felt untenable, Ayad Akhtar, the president of PENs board, told me. The decision was made on the basis of certain human considerations, he said. Had we made the decision on the basis of principle, it would have meant a human cost that we certainly didnt want to pay at this particular moment given whats going on in Ukraine.

But when asked about Gessens resignation, Akhtar simply sighed. Its a big loss for us, he said. A big loss.

Read more here:
Masha Gessen Resigns in Protest From PEN America Board - The Atlantic

In no way has Musk shown a genuine commitment to free speech, even as he continues to pay lip service to the concept. And his decision over the weekend to censor tweets in Turkey may have been his most egregious violation yet. Pressed by Substacker Matt Yglesias on Saturday, Musk responded in a typically petulantand revealingfashion. Did your brain fall out of your head, Yglesias? he tweeted. The choice is have Twitter throttled in its entirety or limit access to some tweets. Which one do you want?

Its obvious which one Musk wants, but the choice here is far from obvious. Musk could have dared Erdoan to block Twitter entirely in Turkey. If Erdoan had blinked, then Musk would have looked noble for once. If Erdoan instead blocked Twitter, at least his supporters and opponents would have been silenced equallyand such a move would have made his authoritarianism even clearer to voters.

Musk also argued that, well, everyone complies with these requestsand that he was, in fact, being more transparent than his peers. This is par for the course for all Internet companieswe are just going to be clear that its happening, unlike the others, he tweeted. Except thats really not the case. In 2014, Erdoans government blocked access to Twitter after it refused requests to censor accounts in the lead-up to local elections. Twitter responded by telling users how to circumvent the ban; access was ultimately restored two weeks later, after an uproar.

View post:
Elon Musk Doesn't Care About Free Speech - The New Republic