Category Archives: Free Speech

Freedom of speech, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo declared more than 80 years ago, is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Countless other justices, commentators, philosophers, and more have waxed eloquent for decades over the critically important role that freedom of speech plays in promoting and maintaining democracy.

Yet 227 years after the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified in 1791 as the Bill of Rights, debate continues about the meaning of freedom of speech and its First Amendment companion, freedom of the press.

This issue of Human Rights explores contemporary issues, controversies, and court rulings about freedom of speech and press. This is not meant to be a comprehensive survey of First Amendment developments, but rather a smorgasbord of interesting issues.

One point of regular debate is whether there is a free speech breaking point, a line at which the hateful or harmful or controversial nature of speech should cause it to lose constitutional protection under the First Amendment. As longtime law professor, free speech advocate, author, and former American Civil Liberties Union national president Nadine Strossen notes in her article, there has long been a dichotomy in public opinion about free speech. Surveys traditionally show that the American people have strong support for free speech in general, but that number decreases when the poll focuses on particular forms of controversial speech.

The controversy over what many call hate speech is not new, but it is renewed as our nation experiences the Black Lives Matter movement and the Me Too movement. These movements have raised consciousness and promoted national dialogue about racism, sexual harassment, and more. With the raised awareness come increased calls for laws punishing speech that is racially harmful or that is offensive based on gender or gender identity.

At present, contrary to widely held misimpressions, there is not a category of speech known as hate speech that may uniformly be prohibited or punished. Hateful speech that threatens or incites lawlessness or that contributes to motive for a criminal act may, in some instances, be punished as part of a hate crime, but not simply as offensive speech. Offensive speech that creates a hostile work environment or that disrupts school classrooms may be prohibited.

But apart from those exceptions, the Supreme Court has held strongly to the view that our nation believes in the public exchange of ideas and open debate, that the response to offensive speech is to speak in response. The dichotomysociety generally favoring free speech, but individuals objecting to the protection of particular messagesand the debate over it seem likely to continue unabated.

A related contemporary free speech issue is raised in debates on college campuses about whether schools should prohibit speeches by speakers whose messages are offensive to student groups on similar grounds of race and gender hostility. On balance, there is certainly vastly more free exchange of ideasthat takes place on campuses today than the relatively small number of controversies or speakers who were banned or shut down by protests. But those controversies have garnered prominent national attention, and some examples are reflected in this issue of Human Rights.

The campus controversies may be an example of freedom of speech in flux. Whether they are a new phenomenon or more numerous than in the past may be beside the point. Some part of the current generation of students, population size unknown, believes that they should not have to listen to offensive speech that targets oppressed elements of society for scorn and derision. This segment of the student population does not buy into the open dialogue paradigm for free speech when the speakers are targeting minority groups. Whether they feel that the closed settings of college campuses require special handling, or whether they believe more broadly that hateful speech has no place in society, remains a question for future consideration.

Few controversies are louder or more visible today than attention to the role and credibility of the news media. A steady barrage of tweets by President Donald Trump about fake news and the fake news media has put the role and credibility of the media front and center in the public eye. Media critics, fueled by Trump or otherwise, would like to dislodge societal norms that the traditional news media strives to be fair and objective. The norm has been based on the belief that the media serves two important roles: first, that the media provides the essential facts that inform public debate; and, second, that the media serves as a watchdog to hold government accountable.

The present threat is not so much that government officials in the United States will control or even suppress the news media. The Supreme Court has probably built enough safeguards under the First Amendment to generally protect the ability of the news media to operate free of government interference. Theconcern is that constant attacks on the veracity of the press may hurt credibilityand cause hostility toward reporters trying to do their jobs. Theconcern is also that if ridicule of the news media becomes acceptable in this country, it helps to legitimize cutbacks on freedom of the press in other parts of the world as well. Jane E. Kirtley, professor and director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota and past director for 14 years of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, brings her expertise to these issues in her article.

Other current issues in our society raise interesting free speech questions as well. It is well-establishedlaw that the First Amendments free speech guarantee only applies to government action. It is the government whether federal, state, or localthat may not restrict freedom of speech without satisfying a variety of standards and tests that have been established by the Supreme Court over the past century. But the difference between government action and private regulation is sometimes a fine line. This thin distinction raises new questions about freedom of speech.

Consider the Take a Knee protests among National Football League (NFL) players expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement by kneeling during the National Anthem. On their face, these protests involve entirely private conduct; the players are contractual employees of the private owners of the NFL teams, and the First Amendment has no part to play. But what could be more publicthan these protests, watched by millions of people, taking place in stadiums that were often built with taxpayer support, debated by elected politicians and other public officials, discussed by television commentators because of the public importance of the issue. That is not enough to trigger the application of the First Amendment, but should it be? First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr., a law professor in Nashville, considers this and related questions about the public-private distinction in his article.

Another newly emerging aspect of the public-private line is the use of social media communications by public officials. Facebook and Twitter are private corporations, not government actors, much like NFL team owners. But as one article exams in this issue, a federal court recently wrestled with the novel question of whether a public officials speech is covered by the First Amendment when communicating official business on a private social media platform. In a challenge by individuals who were barred from President Trumps Twitter account, a federal judge ruled that blocking access to individuals based on their viewpoint violated the First Amendment. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it may open up an entire new avenue of First Amendment inquiry.

One aspect of current First Amendmentlaw is not so much in flux as in a state of befuddlement. Courts have long wrestled with how to deal with sexually explicit material under the First Amendment, what images, acts, and words are protected speech and what crosses the line into illegal obscenity. But today that struggle that has spanned decades seems largely relegated to history because of technology. The advent of the relatively unregulated Internet has made access to sexually explicit material virtually instantaneous in the home without resort to mailed books and magazines or trips to adult bookstores or theaters.

In his article, law professor and First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone elaborates on much of the legal and social history and current challenges in handling sexually explicit material, drawing on his own 2017 book, Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from Americas Origins to the Twenty-First Century.

If there is a unifying theme in the articles in this issue of Human Rights, it may be that while as a nation, we love our freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press, we are never far removedeven after more than two centuriesfrom debates and disputes over the scope and meaning of those rights.

Stephen J. Wermiel is a professor of practice of constitutional law at American University Washington College of Law. He is past chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice and a current member of the ABA Board of Governors.

The views expressed here are the author's and do not reflect those of the ABA Board of Governors.

See original here:
The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech - American Bar Association

Ron DeSantis would destroy our free speech rights, and hes coming to Northeast Ohio: Letter from the editor  cleveland.com

Read the rest here:
Ron DeSantis would destroy our free speech rights, and hes coming to Northeast Ohio: Letter from the editor - cleveland.com

Twitter owner Elon Musk, left, at the Met Gala in New York City on May 2, 2022; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, right, during a press conference in Washington, D.C., on April 7, 2022. Musk pushed back on Wednesday after Ocasio-Cortez criticized him over the recent announcement of a "subscription plan" on Twitter. Left: Alexi Rosenfeld/GC Images, Right: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has denounced Elon Musk for pushing "free speech" on Twitter while offering an $8 per month "blue check" plan, prompting the billionaire to jokingly demand she "pay $8."

Musk, who took ownership and control of Twitter last week, has faced backlash over concerns that his stance as a "free speech absolutist" will allow misinformation to run rampant on the platform. His plan to offer users a paid "verification" option, which includes "priority" for subscribers, has sparked additional concerns that the plan will enable misinformation and stifle speech for those who do not pay.

Ocasio-Cortez mocked Musk's paid plan in a tweet on Tuesday night, while suggesting that he was attempting to deceive Twitter users into believing that payment is required for free speech.

"Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that 'free speech' is actually a $8/mo subscription plan," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Musk responded to Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday, tweeting, "Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8." Musk pinned the tweet to his Twitter profile soon after.

The new Twitter owner's response was shared and supported by figures such as Donald Trump Jr., who accused Ocasio-Cortez of being unable to "grasp the basic concept of tax breaks/incentives" and depriving New York City of over 25,000 new jobs by opposing the company's plan to build a new headquarters in the city.

"I'm certain she shouldn't be handing out financial advice to anyone let alone Elon Musk," Trump Jr. tweeted.

The Democratic congresswoman defended her opposition to the Amazon plan at the time by arguing that she had saved the city "billions" in "handouts" and "corporate giveaways."

Before Musk responded, venture capitalist and Musk associate David Sacks responded to Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of the Twitter subscription plan by asking why newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post were not "free," adding "their billionaire owners should stop being greedy and give us those products for free."

"Are you seriously equating an app where people are torrenting racial slurs at an accelerated clip with the New York Times," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response, alongside a "rolling on the floor laughing" emoji.

"Also fyi, legacy newspapers actually care about verifying newsworthy sources," she continued. "And they don't charge their journalists/creators for 'priority' placement."

In a subsequent tweet, Ocasio-Cortez went on to call "billionaire ownership of our news sources" a "legitimate problem."

"Hope you're using your power to stop private equity gutting of local newsrooms while supporting nonprofit and co-op modeled news outlets as well," she told Sacks.

Musk's plan for paid verification has received backlash from both ends of the political spectrum, including from some who have expressed concerns that the option could make it easier to impersonate public figures or organizations.

On Wednesday, Twitter's top trending topic was #RatVerified, which mocks the plan by encouraging people to place rat emojis next to their usernames to become "rat verified" for free.

Musk's stance on "free speech" and misinformation was the subject of mockery on Tuesday, when #TrumpIsDead trended alongside false and often absurd reports claiming that former President Donald Trump had died.

Newsweek reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's office and Twitter for comment.

View original post here:
Elon Musk pushes back after AOC blasts Twitter's "free speech," paid plan

CHICAGO (AP) Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words Save the 1st scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.

The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

Jones took the stand Tuesday and Wednesday in his own defense.

Heres a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:

ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?

They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isnt protected speech.

Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.

Jones trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.

WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.

That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.

I dont know why they didnt cooperate, said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York Universitys First Amendment Watch. It is just really peculiar. ... Its so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.

It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.

It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied, said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesnt protect defamatory speech.

Speech is free, he said, but lies you have to pay for.

Jones lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.

If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebodys feelings, we are not in America anymore, he said.

Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.

WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly typically via the media and purporting that its true. An opinion cant be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someones reputation.

The parents suing Jones say his lies about their childs death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones followers.

IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?

Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.

In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove actual malice, that a false statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?

Their lawyers say they clearly arent in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.

The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.

Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.

WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?

The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.

Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.

He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.

CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIALS OUTCOME?

Indirectly, yes.

Jones cant argue that hes not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

Jurors could say (Jones defamatory statements) is actually something we dont want to punish very hard, said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.

COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.

But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.

It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook, said Solomon. Thats not opinion. It is a fact. Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, I think Alex Jones would still lose, he said.

But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.

I wouldnt discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed, he said. Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fools errand.

MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?

Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate, the ruling said.

But it and the Jones case have key differences.

They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one persons reputation Goldberg said.

He added: Id be shocked if (Jones) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.

___

For more of the APs coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings

View original post here:
Is Alex Jones' trial about free speech rights? | AP News

[tabs][tab title='The details' id='details' /][tab title='Before you start' id='before' /][tab title='The Prompt' id='prompt' /][tab title='Submit' id='submitEssay' /][/tabs]

Eligibility

Open to juniors and seniors in U.S. high schools, including home-schooled students, as well as U.S. citizens attending high school overseas. Additional questions regarding eligibility may be emailed to essaycontest@thefire.org.

Word Length

Students must submit an essay between 700 and 900 words on the provided topic below.

Deadline

FIRE must receive all entries by 11:59 EST, December 31, 2021. Winners will be announced by February 15, 2022.

Scholarship Prizes

One $10,000 first prize, one $5,000 second prize, three $1,000 third place prizes and four $500 prizes will be awarded.

Get to know us! The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of consciencethe essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. In addition to defending the rights of students and faculty, FIRE works to educate students and the general public on the necessity of free speech and its importance to a thriving democratic society.

The freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is a foundational American right. Nowhere is that right more important than on our college campuses, where the free flow of ideas and the clash of opposing views advance knowledge and promote human progress. It is on our college campuses, however, where some of the most serious violations of free speech occur, and where students are regularly censored simply because their expression might offend others.

In a persuasive letter or essay, convince your peers that free speech is a better idea than censorship.

Your letter or essay must be between 700-900 words. We encourage you to draw from current events, historical examples, our free speech comic, other resources on FIREs website, and/or your own personal experiences.

Note: While there is no required format for your submission, many entrants use MLA guidelines. Successful entries will show an understanding of the importance of free speech and the pitfalls of censorship. You may use in-text citations, and do not need to include a References or Works Cited page. Essays that do not address the prompt question or fail to meet the word-count requirements will not be considered. View the essays of some of our past winners here!

Entering this essay contest constitutes agreement to having your name and essay published on FIRE's website if you are selected as a winner. FIRE reserves the right to make minor edits to winning essays before publication on our website.

The contest will reopen in 2023. Check back for updates.

[go-to-top target="top"]

More:
Free Speech Essay Contest | The Foundation for Individual Rights ... - FIRE

Binance CEO Says Support for Free Speech is Reason He Invested in Twitter - Latest Tweet by Reuters  LatestLY

See more here:
Binance CEO Says Support for Free Speech is Reason He Invested in Twitter - Latest Tweet by Reuters - LatestLY

You may think you live in a free country. Some foreign governments would disagree.

Authoritarian countries like China, Turkey, and Russia are trying to export their brand of oppression around the world. And theyre succeeding.

Just this weekend we received another reminder that freedom of speech isnt safe even in free countries when violence broke out after dozens of demonstrators supporting Hong Kongs protest movement congregated outside of the Chinese consulate in Manchester.

For the tens of thousands of individuals who left the increasingly stifling environment in Hong Kong for the UK in the past two years, its also a warning that even though theyve fled Chinas repression, it can still follow them abroad.

Among the posters demonstrators displayed advocating for Hong Kong independence, one image especially appeared to provoke outrage within the consulate, which called the picture insulting. It depicted President Xi Jinping dressed like a king in the reflection of a mirror but in reality wearing only boxers and a crown, a clear allusion to Hans Christian Andersens classic The Emperors New Clothes. The protesters reference to a fable in which people are afraid to speak critical truth about their leader proved particularly apt given what soon followed.

Consular staff in bulletproof vests reportedly rushed out of the grounds, vandalized some of the protesters signs, and dragged one of the demonstrators onto the consular grounds and assaulted him. Greater Manchester Police, who intervened to rescue the demonstrator from the attackers, reported that he suffered several physical injuries and remained in hospital overnight for treatment. Members of Parliament quickly demanded an investigation, and police promise one is underway.

This violence is unacceptable. It must be condemned and punished appropriately.

But while the attack is shocking, it isnt exactly surprising. After all, its been only four years since U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi stepped into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, never to walk back out.

A Chinese student was sentenced to prison when he returned home over tweets he had posted mocking Xi Jinping while at the University of Minnesota.

In recent years, authoritarians have grown more savvyand more brazenabout enforcing their own censorship policies overseas, including in countries like the United States, regardless of local protections for freedom of expression. In the case of Saudi Arabias outrageous recent sentencing of a U.S. citizen for tweets he posted years ago while at home in Florida, they may wait for opportunities to punish speakers who engaged in legal expression in free countries.

Authoritarian governments should be condemned for the rights violations they inflict upon their own people. But we also must be vigilant about their efforts to inflict those violations across other countries borders including our own.

The Manchester Chinese consular officials behavior may look familiar to Americans, who in 2017 witnessed an all-out assault against peaceful protesters, including children, outside of the Turkish ambassadors residence in Washington, D.C., by President Recep Tayyip Erdogans security team. Some of the assaulted individuals sustained injuries, including concussions and knocked out teeth, as Erdogan watched on. Nearly twenty people were indicted over the attacks, but within a year, charges against more than half of the individuals were quietly dropped.

For too long, free countries have allowed this threat to simmer under the surface and now its ugly consequences are too obvious to be ignored.

The Turkish governments attack on Americans right to speak was blatant, but efforts from Chinese officials are the most pervasive. Just months ago, a federal grand jury indicted five individuals, including two current and former Department of Homeland Security officers, for their involvement in schemes to surveil and censor U.S.-based critics of the Chinese Communist Party.

And while outright violence is fortunately not widespread on American college campuses, they are often the epicenter of efforts to control whats said about China abroad. At the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, where I work, I have followed the uptick in efforts by students, administrators, and Chinese officials to censor and silence campus critics of China.

A Chinese student was sentenced to prison when he returned home over tweets he had posted mocking Xi Jinping while at the University of Minnesota. At institutions including the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chinese consular officials have demanded administrators cancel speaking invitations to the Dalai Lama and Taiwanese politicians. State media and nationalists harassed a Chinese student who praised the fresh air of free speech at a University of Maryland commencement address. Students from the University of Chicagos Chinese Students and Scholars Association demanded exiled Hong Kong activist and politician Nathan Law be disinvited from a campus program, claiming he falls outside the purviews of free speech.

As citizens of unfree countries around the world can attest, once freedom of speech has been ceded away, its nearly impossible to restore.

And in February, the president of George Washington University even temporarily threatened to investigate and unmask students who posted artwork highlighting Chinas human rights violations ahead of the Beijing 2022 Olympics, after some student groups claimed it insulted China and demanded punishment of the students involved. Weeks ago, anonymous Chinese students papered the same campus with flyers calling on George Washington Universitys administration to protect them from efforts to silence Chinese dissidents, including their peers on campus. Many of the posters were quickly torn down.

When even the United States cannot provide a safe environment for dissenters to speak freely about authoritarian governments, all of us have a problem.

For too long, free countries have allowed this threat to simmer under the surface and now its ugly consequences are too obvious to be ignored. Whether it occurs in Manchester or Washington, we must respond swiftly and decisively to authoritarian efforts to censor and silence dissent overseas.

As citizens of unfree countries around the world can attest, once freedom of speech has been ceded away, its nearly impossible to restore.

Read the rest here:
Violent attack at Manchester Chinese Consulate a grim reminder of the fragility of free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Recently, when scrolling through TikTok purely for research purposes of course we paused on a video spilling the tea (that means sharing the goss) on the hottest new social media app, BeReal.

As social media researchers and teachers of Gen Z university students, we try to stay current with the latest trends. BeReal is a refreshing change from curated feeds however, as with most new social media platforms, free speech issues may lurk just around the corner.

Self-described as not another social network by French founders Alexis Barreyat and Kvin Perreau, BeReal is the anti-Instagram version of Snapchat, where users are encouraged to be real and authentic.

Once a day, BeReal users receive a notification with a strict deadline of two minutes in which to post an unfiltered photo of themselves, in all their pyjama-clad, Netflix-watching glory. Or engaging in whatever activity that makes up most of our days studying, working, running errands, making dinner.

The end result is a feed of mundane photos of friends (or strangers found through the Discovery feature) that is equal parts liberating and comforting. It reminds us most peoples lives are just as ordinary as our own, and a refreshing change from the highly curated social feeds we usually see.

As a fledgling app still in its honeymoon phase, with little scrutiny to date, BeReal is yet to see significant public scandals. For now, the app may just be a fun way for young people to connect.

Read more: Social network BeReal shares unfiltered and unedited moments from our lives - will it last?

But, as researchers examining the interplay between social media and free speech, we can imagine free speech issues on the horizon for BeReal, whose vague terms of use give the company a high degree of discretion over content moderation.

Weve seen this before on platforms like Facebook, which has been accused of censorship by deleting Black Lives Matter protest content and the iconic Napalm Girl photo.

Free speech tensions in this area are fraught. While social media companies are often accused of unwarranted censorship, they also face significant pressure to limit harmful content like hate speech on their platforms.

Just days ago, TikTok, Twitter and Instagram rushed to remove anti-Semitic content shared by Ye (formerly known as Kanye West). Now the rapper has pledged to buy so-called free speech app Parler as a reaction against his deplatforming.

Read more: Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative

Meanwhile, the proposed banning of TikTok in the US due to data security concerns has been met with claims of free speech violations from critics, such as free speech organisation Article 19.

For the more recent BeReal, free speech may become an issue if it attracts more nefarious uses. So far, the apps terms of use encourage users to report illicit or inappropriate content while shirking liability as a mere hosting company rather than an actual publisher of content.

The terms also require users not to post any content of a sexual and/or child pornographic nature, [or material] calling for hatred, terrorism, violence in general or against a group of people in particular, inciting others to endanger themselves or provoking suicide.

While this is in line with content policies on other social media platforms, problems potentially remain for free speech.

Firstly, BeReals terms provide little guidance on what constitutes this undesired content, leaving the platform with a high degree of discretion as to what content can be censored.

Secondly, although BeReal reserves the right to remove or temporarily or permanently suspend access to violating content, it is not clear whether users will receive warnings prior to content removal, what breaches will trigger which disciplinary actions, and whether there are any avenues of appeal available to users.

Imagine, for example, that a BeReal user with many followers posts an image of police using unreasonable force to arrest a person at a protest. BeReal might delete the content for depicting violence. Yet images such as these can often constitute speech.

Free speech laws usually only prevent censorship by governments rather than companies some academics have called this into question amidst the unprecedented power of social media companies to censor speech online.

With this in mind, we should be concerned material on BeReal could be removed without explanation, warning, transparency or avenue for appeal.

Consumers should be concerned about the sweeping discretion social media companies like BeReal have over so much of our speech. In addition to independent oversight, greater regulation and a code of conduct, we should demand clearer avenues of appeal and greater transparency regarding content moderation decisions from all social media platforms.

BeReal is currently not much more than a gallery of the mundane, and as such, these may not be pressing issues. Especially if the app is a passing fad, which it may well prove to be.

But with all eyes on Meta, TikTok and Twitter, smaller companies can fly under the radar. We always need to be ready to protect speech in the next potential marketplace of ideas.

Read more: Why the business model of social media giants like Facebook is incompatible with human rights

Continued here:
Millions of users are flocking to the BeReal app but it may pose free speech issues - The Conversation

University of Pittsburghs student-run newspaperThe Pitt Newsrecently published aneditorialabout limiting hate speech.

The piece, titled There needs to be a limit on hate speech, argues that alt-right speakers should not be invited to campus due to hateful content.

While the First Amendment does protect people and give them the ability to say what they want, this doesnt mean they always should, the editorial board wrote. While we do have free speech, hate speech especially hate speech to gain monetary value should be restricted, as it allows people to continue saying hateful things without fear of repercussions.

[RELATED: Princeton course accuses far right activists of abusing free speech to justify hate speech]

The article cited Alex Jones, Kanye West, Andrew Tate, and Milo Yiannopoulos as speakers who engage in "hate speech."

The editorial board argues that such speakers on campus can lead to people acting on this speech and committing heinous crimes against innocent people.

Just because free speech is protected doesnt mean that it doesnt have real world implications, the board continued. There has to be more limits on hate speech to prevent further physical violence and hate crimes which occur as a direct result of such rhetoric.

[RELATED: These are the top 10 worst schools for free speech this year]

University of Pittsburgh student Shayla Behnke, however, disagrees with the editorial boards claims.

The First Amendment should be able to be executed in its entirety, Behnke toldCampus Reform. Just to be clear, I dont condone hate speech or hate of any kind, I just acknowledge and respect the Constitution and what it protects fully.

Sal Zuber, another UPitt student, told Campus Reform that grouping speakers under one label is irresponsible.

People who are affected by speech to the point of taking radical action need to be counseled, not shielded because shields always fail, he said, and lacking critical thinking and decision making skills in favor of living in a bubble is irresponsible.

Campus Reformreached out to the University of Pittsburgh andThe Pitt NewsEditorial Board for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

Follow@thelogandubilon Twitter.

Read the original post:
Free speech has 'real world implications,' editorial board argues - Campus Reform

The 2022 edition of Freedom on the Net finds that governments restricted free speech on the internet in 28 countries, but 26 countries enhanced freedom of expression online.

WASHINGTON Free speech on the internet declined for a 12th consecutive year as more governments erected digital barriers designed to censor dissent and monitor users, according to a report released today by Freedom House. The study finds that more than three-quarters of the worlds internet users now live in countries where authorities punish people for exercising their right to free expression online. The sharpest drop in internet freedom took place in Russia, as the Kremlin intensified its efforts to stifle domestic opposition and muzzle independent media in the wake of its illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The new report, Freedom on the Net 2022: Countering an Authoritarian Overhaul of the Internet, finds that the internet is more fragmented than ever, with a record number of governments imposing restrictions on what billions of people can access and share onlinewhether by blocking foreign websites, hoarding personal data, or increasing control over their countries technical infrastructure. The moves by repressive leaders, both within their borders and on the international stage, seek to divide the open internet into a patchwork of repressive enclaves where they can advance their narrow interests and cement their hold on power.

Authoritarian regimes are building digital walls that hamper the free exchange of information and make it easier to silence dissent, promote dangerous disinformation, and access personal data, said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. As more aspects of our lives move online, strengthening internet freedom takes on greater importance for the protection of freedom in general. Digital repression is driving a broader democratic decline around the world, and countering it is vital to the global struggle against authoritarian rule.

Despite an overall global decline, the report documented some significant improvements in internet freedom, made possible by the tireless work of civil society activists, media groups, and human rights defenders. A record 26 countries registered net gains in internet freedom for the year. In response to authoritarian governments making inroads at international institutions, a cohort of democracies have come together to shape global cyber standards and advance a positive vision for the internet. However, the report also finds that many democracies have yet to significantly improve respect for online rights at home, often adopting flawed domestic policies that risk undermining the values they seek to defend abroad.

Report findings:

Global internet freedom declined for the 12th consecutive year. The sharpest downgrades on the reports 100-point scale were documented in Russia (7), Myanmar (5), Sudan (4), and Libya (4). Following the Russian militarys disastrous invasionof Ukraine, the Kremlin dramatically intensified its ongoing efforts to suppress domestic dissent and accelerated the closure or exile of the countrys remaining independent media outlets. In at least 53 countries, users faced legal repercussions for expressing themselves online, often leading to draconian prison terms.

Governments are breaking apart the global internet to create more controllable online spaces. A record number of national governments blocked websites with nonviolent political, social, or religious content, undermining the rights to free expression and access to information. A majority of these blocks targeted information sources that were located outside of the country. New national laws posed an additional threat to the free flow of information by centralizing technical infrastructure and applying flawed regulations to social media platforms and the management of user data.

Users in China have the least internet freedom for the eighth consecutive year. Censorship intensified during the 2022 Beijing Olympics and after tennis star Peng Shuai accused a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official of sexual assault. The government continued to tighten its control over the countrys booming technology sector, including through new rules that require platforms to use their algorithmic systems to promote CCP ideology.

A record 26 countries experienced internet freedom improvements. Two of the larger improvements occurred in The Gambia (+3) and Zimbabwe (+3). Despite the overall global decline, civil society organizations in many countries have led collaborative efforts to improve legislation, develop media resilience, and ensure accountability among technology companies. Successful collective actions against internet shutdowns offered a model for further progress on other problems like commercial spyware.

Internet freedom in the United States improved marginally for the first time in six years. There were fewer reported cases of targeted surveillance and online harassment during protests compared with the previous year, and the country now ranks ninth globally, tied with Australia and France. The United States still lacks a comprehensive federal privacy law, and policymakers made little progress on the passage of other legislation related to internet freedom. Ahead if the November 2022 midterm elections, the online environment was riddled with political disinformation, conspiracy theories, and harassment aimed at election workers and officials.

Human rights hang in the balance amid a competition to control the web. Authoritarian states are vying to propagate their model of digital control around the world. In response, a coalition of democratic governments has increased the promotion of online human rights at multilateral forums, outlining their vision for a free and open internet. However, their progress remains hampered by problematic internet freedom practices in their own countries.

Freedom on the Net is an annual study of human rights in the digital sphere. The project assesses internet freedom in 70 countries, accounting for 89 percent of the worlds internet users. This report, the 12th in its series, covered developments between June 2021 and May 2022. More than 80 analysts and advisers contributed to this years edition, using a standard methodology to determine each countrys internet freedom score on a 100-point scale, with 21 separate indicators pertaining to obstacles to access, limits on content, and violations of user rights.

The report identifies a number of steps that policymakers and companies can take to foster internet freedom. These include meaningfully engaging with civil society groups that are involved in the fight against digital repression and internet fragmentation by providing them with funding, technical expertise, strategic litigation assistance, capacity building, and other support to advance their work. Policymakers, according to the report, should also work together to pass robust privacy laws and develop new regulations to enforce platform transparency, which would shed light on the use of algorithms and recommendation systems and how company operations affect human rights.View the reports complete recommendations for governments and technology companies here.

View the reports complete recommendations for governments and technology companies here.

Peter Page is the Contributions Editor at Grit Daily. Formerly at Entrepreneur.com, he began his journalism career as a newspaper reporter long before print journalism had even heard of the internet, much less realized it would demolish the industry. The years he worked a police reporter are a big influence on his world view to this day. Page has some degree of expertise in environmental policy, the energy economy, ecosystem dynamics, the anthropology of urban gangs, the workings of civil and criminal courts, politics, the machinations of government, and the art of crystallizing thought in writing.

Read more:
Report Finds Repressive Governments Are at War With Free Speech on the Internet - Grit Daily