Category Archives: Free Speech

May 31, 2022 by Oskar Rey Category: Governance , Court Decisions and AGO Opinions

The First Amendment provides broad protection of freedom of speech and places stringent limits on the ability of government to regulate private expression, especially when the regulation discriminates against speakers based on their viewpoint. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) uses a different analysis for government speech, which applies when government speaks instead of regulates. Government entities need to be able to communicate, so it makes sense that government speech is analyzed differently than government regulation of the speech of othersbut it is not always easy to tell which is which.

In this blog I will review recent government speech case law, including the Shurtleff v. City of Boston flag raising case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month, and then I will provide thoughts on how to determine when government is speaking versus when it is regulating speech, and what factors make a difference.

The seminal government speech case is City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum, a 2009 decision which involved sculpture and monument displays in a city park. A religious organization requested permission to erect a stone monument containing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum that would be similar in size to an existing Ten Commandments monument in the park. A lower court, noting that parks are public forums and many of the monuments in the park were donated by private entities, held that the monuments were not government speech. It ruled that under the First Amendment, the city was required to allow installation of the Summum monument.

The Supreme Court reversed. It noted that while parks themselves are public forums, the display of monuments in parks is likely to be associated with the city. Even when a monument is donated, municipalities typically exercise control over what is displayed through submission requirements, policies, and legislative approval of specific proposals. The City of Pleasant Grove applied a detailed submission policy with respect to proposals for new park monuments. The permanent nature of monuments, coupled with the citys oversight over the selection process, led the Supreme Court to conclude that the monuments were government speech, and therefore, the government could decide which monuments to display.

In 2015, the Supreme Court considered whether the State of Texas could deny a proposal by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) for a specialty license plate that depicted the Confederate battle flag in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

Texas law provides that the state has sole control over the design, color, and typeface of all license plates. There is a specific process by which the state reviews submittals of proposed specialty license plates designed by private entities, and the state had actively exercised its authority by denying at least a dozen requests in the past. With respect to the SCV plate design, the state denied it because many members of the public would find it offensive.

The Supreme Court ruled that Texas role in approving specialty license plate designs was government speech and not regulation of the speech of others. In so doing, the Supreme Court noted the longstanding use of state slogans and emblems on license plates. Under the majoritys analysis, license plates are a form of government-issued identification and do not constitute a traditional public forum (like streets or parks) or a limited public forum for the purpose of expression. As a result, the Free Speech Clause did not impact Texas regulation of specialty license plates.

There are three flagpoles in a plaza in front of Boston City Hall. The first two display flags from the United States and the State of Massachusetts and the third generally displays the flag of the City of Boston. However, the City of Boston had a practice of allowing outside groups to raise their flags on the third flagpole while holding events in the plaza below.

A religious organization sought to hold a flag raising ceremony in the plaza involving what it described as a Christian flag. The city denied the request due to concerns that raising a religious flag on a city flagpole would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (As an aside, this concern was in error making public facilities available to religious organizations on the same terms and conditions as secular organizations does not constitute government establishment of religion.)

The religious organization sued, claiming that the denial was impermissible viewpoint discrimination and a violation of its free speech rights. In response, the City of Boston argued the decision of what flags will fly over city hall is government speech.

All the justices agreed that the denial of the flag raising request was a violation of the religious organizations free speech rights and that the flag raising, under the facts of the case, was not government speech. To understand why the result of Shurtleff was different from Summum and Walker, it is important to consider the following:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of clear and meaningful policies when it comes to government speech:

[T]he city's lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.

In other words, the Supreme Court found the denial of the flag raising request was regulation of speech, and not speech by a government entity. For more on flag display in particular, including policy examples from Washington State local governments, see our Flag Display Requirements and Protocol webpage.

At MRSC, we often emphasize the importance of written policies, and the Shurtleff case is a prime example of how clear and detailed policies can make a difference. It is not just a question of having written policies, they need to be followed and adhered to. This is particularly true in government speech situations.

When a court reviews a claim of government speech, there are generally two options: either the government speech doctrine applies, which means that the issue will not be reviewed as a restriction on speech under the Free Speech Clause; or government speech does not apply, in which case the issue will be subject to Free Speech Clause scrutiny. The dramatic difference between these two options is illustrated by Shurtleff. Once the Supreme Court found that the government speech doctrine did not apply, it needed a single paragraph to conclude that Bostons denial of the flag raising request was impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the Free Speech Clause.

A fundamental characteristic of the government speech doctrine is the extent to which its application depends on the policies and actions of government. Government speech can apply in a wide variety of contexts park monuments, specialty license plates, and flag raising are just a few examples but it only applies when government takes steps to control the message. Change the level of government involvement in the speech selection process, and the results of all three cases discussed above could have been different.

MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions.

VIEW ALL POSTS BY Oskar Rey

Continued here:
Speaking Versus Regulating The Government Speech Doctrine - MRSC

Something is terribly wrong with America when an 18-year-old can buy an assault-style rifle, then uses it in an elementary school to kill 19 children and two teachers. Salvador Ramos legally bought an AR-15 rifle a day after he turned 18. Three days later he bought another one. He bought enough ammunition to go to war.

As an 18-year-old he is not allowed to legally buy alcohol or tobacco but allowed to buy an AR-15 rifle which, like the military version, can load multiple bullets to quickly kill people. It makes no sense that a high school teenager cannot legally drink alcohol or smoke but can legally buy guns.

The May 24 school massacre in the small town of Uvalde, Texas was just the latest in a long list of tragic shootings that have taken so many innocent lives. Just ten days earlier another 18-year-old white supremacist legally bought a rifle to shoot dead 10 African Americans in a New York supermarket. I am not African American but it still frightened me because I am now living temporarily in New York.

I was living in Seattle in April 1999 when I saw the horrifying TV news of two teenagers who shot to death 12 students and one teacher at the Columbine High School in Colorado and then killed themselves. One of the worst school shootings was in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut when a 20-year-old shot dead 20 children and six adult staff members. He then shot himself in the head and died.

There are more guns in America today than its population of 350 million. The US is the worlds only country that allows its people to freely buy guns. That freedom is enshrined in the Second Amendment of US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. It states the people have the right to bear arms, which means to carry weapons.

The First Amendment gives people the right to free speech, peaceful protests, and to choose their religion. These freedoms are Americas core values which I agree with. Many in Hong Kong believe their rights to free speech and peaceful protests have eroded, especially after Beijings imposition of the national security law.

Whenever there is criticism that Hong Kong is losing its free speech rights, government officials deny it with the retort that free speech is not absolute. But they never clarify where the free speech red lines are.

In the US, the right to free speech, peaceful assemblies, and to bear arms is, to a very large extent, clear and absolute. It is apples and oranges to compare free speech rights in the US and HK. Free speech limits in the US apply only to areas such as libel, child pornography, fraud, criminal acts, and violation of intellectual property laws but not political opinion.

In Hong Kong even political opinion could violate free speech rights. Lighting a candle in Victoria Park on June 4 to commemorate those who died in the June 4 1989 Tiananmen crackdown on democracy could land you in jail. In the US only convicted criminals, people under 18, people with mental disorders, people convicted of domestic violence, and illegal drug users have no right to bear arms.

The free speech right in the First Amendment is so protected that even people who claim they have been defamed must prove the libel was deliberate. A US court made this clear earlier this year when the former Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for defaming her by falsely accusing her of supporting gun violence.

The New York Times had wrongly claimed in a 2017 editorial that a political campaign advertisement by Palins supporters in 2011 had indirectly caused a mass shooting in Arizona which killed 16 people and injured a Democrat Party congresswoman. Palin accused the New York Times of ruining her reputation but the judge ruled she had failed to prove the New York Times deliberately ruined her reputation.

That shows how far the First Amendment protects US free speech. In the US those who say free speech violated their rights must prove in court the violations were deliberate as defined by the First Amendment. The New York Times won by arguing its erroneous editorial was not deliberate.

US President Joe Biden said after the Texas school massacre the freedom to own guns as defined by the Second Amendment is not absolute. I always oppose people who say freedom is not absolute, including the US President. But there is a difference between the freedom to say what you want and the freedom to kill who you want.

The freedom to say what you want doesnt kill people. The freedom to buy guns does kill people, including children in schools as multiple school massacres have shown. As an American I am proud the US values freedom, which I believe everyone who has it wants to protect it and those who dont have it want it.

But as an American I am also ashamed that so many elected politicians, particularly from the Republican Party, refuse to pass simple laws which do not oppose the right to bear arms but just ensure background checks prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying guns. These politicians ignore their conscience to make it harder to buy guns because they need campaign money from the gun lobby to get re-elected.

-- Contact us at [emailprotected]

A Hong Kong-born American citizen who has worked for many years as a journalist in Hong Kong, the USA and London.

Here is the original post:
Free speech and the freedom to kill EJINSIGHT - EJ Insight

CHICAGO-The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF), a non-profit legal and educational organization affiliated with the American Library Association dedicated to protecting and defending each persons First Amendment right to read, concluded its annual election on May 1, 2022. FTRF members elected four new members to its Board of Trustees and re-elected one incumbent board member for two-year terms that begin on June 23, 2022. Since 1969 FTRF trustees, staff, and members have worked to protect First Amendment rights through education, litigation, and advocacy.

As Americans, we cannot take our First Amendment rights for granted. Our right to free speech and our right to read are being challenged daily in all parts of the United States. We welcome the strong leaders who have been elected to the FTRF Board and join with them to support, defend, and advocate for our First Amendment rights and assure intellectual freedom, equitable access, and the freedom to read for all members of our communities, said current FTRF President Barbara Stripling.

Newly elected trustees include:

Jarrett Dapier is new to the Freedom to Read Foundation Board but has volunteered as a speaker for their graduate course collaboration for a number of years. I am interested in being a part of theFTRFboard because of the vital, crucial work this body does to protect the right of all Americans to read. This right is currently under widespread assault from a variety of groups all working in concert to control schools, teachers, and librarians - all professionals who are trained to provide students with accurate information about our world, its history, and its art. I am a tireless advocate for free expression and the right to read and I don't let things go easily, especially when youth rights are violated, said Dapier. Dapier has worked at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of IL on the First Amendment Rights Project, and since 2009 in public libraries where he adapted and directed stories about censorship to the stage with teen performers. He is also the author of the picture book Mr. Watson's Chickens, which is currently being challenged for removal at a public library in Spanish Fort, Alabama.

Jennifer Griswold is the Director of the Pflugerville Public Library in Pflugerville, Texas. She ran for a seat on the Board of Trustees to challenge censorship both locally, and on the national level. She has worked at Pflugerville since 2006 as the Reference Librarian, Assistant Director, and for the past six years as Library Director. Her background is also in news research and academic librarianship. In 2018 Griswold was awarded the honor of being Texas Librarian of the Year, and she is a current member of the Texas Library Association Queers and Allies Roundtable; the Ethnic and Multicultural Exchange Roundtable, the ALA Intellectual Freedom Roundtable, and the staff liaison for the Pflugerville Equity Commission.

Libraries in Texas are on the frontlines of the censorship battle. Area directors meet to discuss the issue, those who are experiencing challenges, and those who are policing themselves out of fear. I believe I can offer a unique perspective not only from myself, but also my colleagues who are involved in active challenges, said Griswold.

Pat Scales is a retired middle and high school librarian and a returning FTRF trustee.

Book censorship is at epidemic levels, and Americas youth are the target. FTRF promotes and defends students right to read, but now, more than ever, the young need to be guided and taught to advocate for themselves. Proactively involving youth in defending their First Amendment rights assures a new generation of free speech advocates and could inoculate them against falling victim to a virus called censorship, said Scales.

She is a free-speech advocate and is the author of Teaching Banned Books: 32 Guides for Children and Teens, Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your School Library and Books Under Fire: A Hit List of Banned and Challenged Childrens Books. She writes a bi-monthly column, Scales on Censorship, for School Library Journal, and is a regular contributor to Book Links magazine. She has also served as a member and chair of the ALAs Intellectual Freedom Committee.

Professor Sophia Sotilleo is an Associate Professor and the Interim Library Director at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania for the Langston Hughes Memorial Library. In this capacity, she has the privilege to teach Information Literacy across all subject areas and works with the Library Team to support and ensure that the Library is a part of the Lincoln University curriculum and co-curriculum strategic plans for student success. Her current area of research and interest is in Embedded Librarianship, with a focus on access, advocacy, and leadership in the field of Librarianship.

I am interested in serving on the Freedom to Read Board to support the work of an organization that defends and promotes the rights of libraries to ensure access to books and information. Working as a librarian at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), serving first generation college students, I see daily the importance of having access to various types of books that not only educate, but also empower and encourage our next generation of leaders. The freedom to read foundation continues to do an amazing job at defending and supporting access to information and I look forward to serving with the organization in this inspiring and important work.

Re-elected for a second term:

Loida Garcia-Febo is a Past President of the American Library Association, a current member of the FTRF Executive Committee, and is looking forward to continuing the work she started by Co-Chairing the FTRF Social Justice and Intellectual Freedom Task Force which resulted in the development of various lines of action and a forthcoming two-day FTRF symposium about the topic. Garcia-Febo has served as Chair of the American Library Associations (ALA) Intellectual Freedom Round Table, long-time active REFORMA (the National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking) liaison to the FTRF, and an Officer of International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (IFLA's FAIFE). She is committed to serve diverse communities and to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion achieving joint historical signatory commitment from US library associations to EDI on which they are building new strategies to serve libraries and library workers. I am eager to continue serving and working together with the FTRF Trustees to continue protecting and defending the First Amendment to the Constitution, said Garcia-Febo.

For photos of the newly elected members, please visithttps://bit.ly/3a7Cq23

The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) is led by a board of fifteen trustees. The term for an elected trustee is two years, and board members may serve two consecutive terms. Trustees meet at least twice a year in conjunction with the ALA conferences or professional development events and hold virtual committee meetings throughout the year. If you are interested in working with the Freedom to Read Foundation visit us at http://www.ftrf.org or email jmcintosh@ala.org for information on how to become involved.

Read the original post:
Freedom to Read Foundation 2022 Election Results | News and Press Center - ala.org

Editors note: Veteran Raleigh-based tech attorneyJim Verdonik,founder ofFire Pit Cell which is dedicated to exploring freedom issues, and co-founder of Innovate Capital Law, Verdonik has been actively involved over several decades in advising technology start-up businesses on capital raising and other legal issues.

+++

RALEIGH Some people view history as a straight line that goes in one direction. Personally, I think history is more like a pendulum. The farther to one side the pendulum swings the greater the force of the pushback in the opposite direction.

Freedom suppressors come from variety of backgroundsfrom mega billionaires, to Chinese dictators, to Wall Street money managers to international bureaucrats. They all march under the common banner of Environmental, Social and Governance is the banner raised by freedom suppressors.

This was a big ESG week at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Among what happened:

Wow. All is lost, right?

Love, hate & distrust: For Big Tech the stakes, risks are getting even bigger

Not so fast. Some people view history as a straight line that goes in one direction. Personally, I think history is more like a pendulum. The farther to one side the pendulum swings, the greater the force of the pushback in the opposite direction.

We are seeing the first signs of that pushback using the same weapons ESG supporters use. Alliance Defending Freedom recently launched the ViewpointDiversityScore.org website and annual Business Index. ADF describes its efforts as follows: the Business Index focuses on industries that have the greatest potential to impact free speech and religious freedom.

These include industries that provide essential banking, payment processing, and cloud services, or that serve as platforms for third-party expression in the digital space. Many of the companies are household names, like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Bank of America.

Along with scoring companies, Viewpoint Diversity Score will provide companies with workable solutions through model polices, research, toolkits, polling, and constructive dialogue.

We can expect that other countermeasures will follow, just like states are pushing back against Disney for is supporting political causes.

Like ADF, they will use the same tools ESG forces are using now.

What do you think?

Free speech is at stake: Twitter, Big Tech, big media vs. Elon Musk and you

I like a good fight as much as the next guy. Buy me a drink and Ill tell you about it. And free speech is one of my most basic values. So, one might expect me to be a big ADF supporter.

Software amplifies power. So, software that rates in favor of free speech must be good, right?

But I ask this basic question. Where is all these software ratings that will be used by both sides leading businesses?

I guess Im old fashioned. I think business should focus on creating and selling product and services that their customers want. If customers dont want it, they wont buy it. Then, businesses must change or die. Anything that diverts from that focus is bad for business.

What happens to an economy where too much attention is being paid to ideological software ratings and not enough attention to delivering what people want to buy?

Weve seen many economies that were driven by ideology:

Not very good examples of thriving economies, are they?

What is ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing? Kenan Institute says

Software concentrates power. When it is harnessed to serve an ideology, it amplifies both the good and bad effects of that ideology.

So, although Im ready to do battle to support free speech and other values, I do wish both sides would disarm and let businesses fulfill their primary missionselling products and services customers want.

Another question: Why would you want your business caught in an ideological war?

When you see half the country fighting the other half, maybe you might not want your business to be in the middle.

Heres how you can avoid that fate:

Or jump into the middle of the war and suffer the consequences.

Tweet this: Elon Musk won Twitter battle with lightning speed

See the original post:
Seal your social rating software in vault - then drop it to the ocean floor - WRAL TechWire

The House Oversight Committee held a hearing Thursday on efforts to limit discussion of history, race, and LGBTQ+ issues in classrooms in several states.

Watch the hearing in the player above.

The hearing included testimony from several students, parents and faculty members.

Book censorship wrecks a healthy environment for free inquiry and learning, and I have been amazed by the widespread response we have received across the country to our hearing from students, parents, teachers, and authors alarmed by what is taking place, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Americans are deeply divided over how much children in K-12 schools should be taught about racism and sexuality, according to a new poll released as Republicans across the country aim to make parental involvement in education a central campaign theme this election year.

Overall, Americans lean slightly toward expanding not cutting back discussions of racism and sexuality, but roughly 4 in 10 say the current approach is about right, including similar percentages across party lines. Still, the poll from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows stark differences between Republicans and Democrats who want to see schools make adjustments.

About 4 in 10 Republicans say teachers in local public schools discuss issues related to sexuality too much, while only about 1 in 10 say too little. Among Democrats, those numbers are reversed.

The findings reflect a sharply politicized national debate that has consumed local school boards and, increasingly, state capitols. Republicans see the fight over school curriculum as a winning culture war issue that will motivate their voters in the midterm elections.

In the meantime, a flurry of new state laws has been introduced, meant to curtail teaching about racism and sexuality and to establish a parents bill of rights that would champion curriculum transparency and allow parents to file complaints against teachers.

Read the original post:
WATCH: House Oversight hearing on threats to free speech and curriculum in schools - PBS NewsHour

Chaz Stevens always uses public forums to make his point, like when he publicly led a prayer to Satan at a government meeting to quell the Judeo-Christian invocations there.

But now, the Deerfield Beach provocateur, whose overriding aim is to get religion out of government, says hes blocked from the venue that first drew him to national notice: the Capitol Rotundas Free Speech Zone.

In 2013, the ardent church-state separation activist erected a Festivus pole made of empty Pabst Blue Ribbon cans in the zone. That propelled him onto Comedy Central.

And for this years Christmas season, Stevens mounted an homage to Dr. Anthony Fauci as Fauci Claus in honor of the White House medical advisors advocacy of vaccines. Currently, he wants to skewer Floridas legislation that prevents teachers from mentioning gender identity or sexual orientation to their students.

But so far even after Stevens downgraded his proposed display showing Gov. Ron DeSantis as Playboys cover model to a blank square foamboard sitting on an easel he said hed been locked out of the Rotundas zone by the Department of Management Service. His requests have been met with a citation of the statutes with the rules governing the area without further explanation.

My uncles went to battle; they kicked the Nazis asses to stand up for my rights to put up whatever I want in the Florida Rotunda underneath a sign that says, This is a Free Speech Zone, said Stevens, who earns money managing a website that connects people with mental health issues with therapists and therapy animals. Now its got a doorman checking your ID, and unless you have the right message thats approved by DeSantis, they are blocking you. Ron is cock-blocking me.

Mostly, Stevens said he doesnt understand the change in the reception from the Department of Management Services, who usually assigned him a time and place for his statements over the years. Hes filed an intent to sue the state.

I have tried to comply with the states ever-shifting reasoning applied as a for-profit, individual, non-profit, heck, Ive used the same verbiage that Ive used for the past decade, Stevens said. Each and every time Ive been told no, each and every time my team receives a different answer.

Gov. DeSantis has all the levers of power, but I have art that fits on a piece of white canvas, Stevens continued. Is his skin so thin and ego so fragile hes afraid to face my artwork?

Contacted by Florida Politics, Debbie Hall, a DMS spokeswoman cited the rule and said she could not comment further on whether there had been a change in the way the rule is being executed or how many other free speech displays have been denied recently.

The Capitol building is generally open to the public during normal working hours(8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday), though the right to make reservations is limited in accordance with the requirements of the rule chapter, she wrote in an email. The Department cannot provide further comment due to the pending litigation.

Stevens said hes perfectly willing to operate within the rules.

Apparently, their VCR is still blinking 12:01 a.m., he joked.

Stevens has been spurred on to a new round of antics as the legislation passed during the recent Session was signed into law. Hes petitioned schools to ban the Bible, based on the prohibition of certain kinds of training (HB 7), the regulation of age-appropriate schoolhouse discussions of gender identity or sexual orientation (HB 1557), and the new level of review for schoolbooks (HB 1467).

The effort recently landed him in the Washington Post, among other venues.

Stevens says he wants DeSantis to make good on his claim that Florida is the freest state. He got the idea of putting up a blank slate in the free speech zone after watching Russian protesters get arrested for holding up an imaginary sign.

How much further away are we from that? he asked rhetorically. Free speech in Florida is not free.

Post Views:0

Read more:
Free speech activist says he's been blocked out of the Rotunda's Free Speech Zone - Florida Politics

Germanys crackdown on protesters mourning the death of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh at the hands of Israeli forces is the latest step in its stifling of pro-Palestine voices.

Media reported that 20 individuals were arrested in Berlin this past weekend. Activists allege that the number was over 170. The reason? Showing public displays of support for Palestine during a pre-emptive ban on all commemorations of the Nakba, or Catastrophe.

These expressions included being in possession of the Palestinian flag, wearing a keffiyeh, the black and white Palestinian scarf, or chanting slogans related to the liberation of Palestine. Palestinian rights groups have reported that two prominent members of Palestinian civil society in Germany were hospitalised because of police violence.

May 15 is the annual remembrance of the Nakba, which marks the start of the displacement and depopulation of Palestinians from their land upon the formation of the state of Israel.

The day centres specifically on the forced, mass exodus of approximately 800,000 Palestinians by Jewish militia groups in 1948. Commemorations and protests are held across the world on this day, but this was not the case for supporters in Germany this year.

In Germany, any public gatherings for Nakba Day, and effectively the entire weekend, were banned under the pretence that anti-Semitic and/or violent sentiment would arise.

Despite this draconian ruling on free speech and the right to organise, activists and organisers sought to forgo Nakba Day commemorations and planned to hold an impromptu vigil for journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed while reporting on an Israeli raid in Jenin.

The main organisers of the vigil, a Jewish group, Jdische Stimme, were also banned under the same paradoxical argument of anti-Semitism under the restrictions around holding Palestine-related events throughout the weekend.

The chairman of the group, Wieland Hoban, explained: The Berlin Senate wants to prevent Palestine solidarity as much as it can. Theyll take a handful of teenagers saying anti-Semitic things and use that to discredit thousands of people who want to demonstrate peacefully.

Despite formal appeals as well as condemnations from different institutions, the capital city, in particular, was keen to enforce this ban.

Those gathered on May 15 came togetheressentially only hoping to raise flags and take pictures in a display of international solidarity. Minutes after a small crowd around 150 to 250 people gathered in Berlin, police arrived on the scene en masse, in a visibly disproportionate number, outfitted in different gear.

Some reports indicate that in anticipation, the authorities deployed approximately 1,000 police officers from the capital and neighbouring municipalities. Activists report that they immediately began arresting anyone with visible Palestinian symbols and IDing passersby, in some cases, using unnecessary force.

They say authorities exhibited disproportionate force both through the number of police dispersed vis-a-vis the number of attendees and the subsequent use of unnecessary physical violence towards the attendees.

Majed Abu Salameh, a prominent activist and co-founder of the collective Palestine Speaks, was seriously injured. On Sunday, he tweeted: I just left the hospital an hour ago with an arm sling to hold my shoulder after the German racist police almost dislocated my shoulder with their violent reactions to us wearing Palestine [keffiyehs].

Wider ramifications

Three years ago, on May 17, 2019, in a very formal and public conflagration of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, the German federal parliament passed a resolution declaring the Boycott Divest Sanctions Movement (BDS) as anti-Semitic.

It dictated that all government institutions were not permitted to support any BDS activities and were not to engage or endorse any boycott activities of Israeli goods and services. The magnitude of this bill is more apparent when one considers that Germany is home to the largest Palestinian diaspora in Europe.

In a recent essay, Ilan Papp, an Israeli academic and supporter of Palestine and the BDS movement, argues that on this trajectory of discrimination against Palestinians, Germany may find itself on the wrong side of history yet again.

He argues that the distorted logic, is based on equating anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel and Zionism. He explains, Since [the anti-BDS resolution] was passed, it led to the cancellation of academic and cultural events associated with Palestine or which is more draconian it applied to any event organized by people known to be pro-Palestinian.

This broad policy the vagueness of which allows for the targeting of individuals single-handedly bred a culture of oppression and silencing so rapidly and with so much force that merely associating yourself with Palestinians implies that you are anti-Israel or an anti-Semite.

The recent mass purge of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian journalists and partners from German media outlet Deutsche Welle, for instance, has come under heavy scrutiny.

The heavy-handed application of the anti-BDS bill and the way in which the German government banned a public demonstration with nonchalance are extreme and illiberal acts.

While it appears the general German public is indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians, it is iterated and reiterated that it is due to a fear of being associated with anti-Semitism or the nations dark history with the persecution of Jews.

Nonetheless, the ease with which the government banned a peaceful demonstration should give the whole nation cause for concern. It not only bypasses many international enshrined human rights, but it is also, as some argue, literally unconstitutional in Germany.

This assault on the freedoms of one group of people can, without a doubt, set precedence for future modalities of disproportionate government action against other social groups.

However, even if this does not pose a general risk to freedom of speech, is it not frightening and rightly reminiscent of old, racist, and exclusionary politics?

Palestine is not an anti-Semitic word, and the accusation is antithetical and contradictory. To hear these false claims spoken and repeated in countless ways becomes another burden on the shoulders of the Palestinians and those who support them.

The BDS and the Palestinian community at large are both human rights and liberation movements. As such, it is imperative to think of the ramifications of the actions of German authorities on national morality and the implications that it has on the character of the state.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

Source: TRT World

Read the rest here:
Palestine and the limits of free speech in Germany - TRT World

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

MSNBC host Chuck Todd declared Tuesday that the right uses the concept of free speech to "appease the White supremacist movement."

While discussing Democratic lawmakers efforts to prevent mass shootings in the wake of the Buffalo, New York shooting that left 10 dead, Todd brought up the idea that the right and conservative media are encouraging or at least making room for White supremacist attacks, claiming arguing for free speech and combating online censorship implicitly aided racists.

People light candles at a makeshift memorial near a Tops Grocery store in Buffalo, New York, on May 15, 2022, the day after a gunman shot dead 10 people. - Grieving residents from the US city of Buffalo held vigils Sunday after a white gunman who officials have deemed "pure evil" shot dead 10 people at a grocery store in a racially-motivated rampage (Photo by Usman KHAN / AFP) (Photo by USMAN KHAN/AFP via Getty Images)

LA TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD BLAMES NORMALIZATION OF VIRULENT WHITE SUPREMACY ON REPUBLICANS

Speaking with NBC News correspondent Garrett Haake, Todd referenced conservative concerns over the new Disinformation Governance Board that was announced by the Department of Homeland Security in April.

"Garrett, look at the way that the right try to weaponize the idea that the DHS was going to essentially try to attempt to monitor hateful rhetoric. They want to make it seem as if its some sort of Big Brother," he said. "And its like, this is always what the right does to appease the White supremacist movement by saying, Hey, free speech. Dont touch speech."

Haake agree and scoffed at conservatives fear over the government board. "Right," he said, "the Ministry of Disinformation they called it."

U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden look at a memorial in the wake of a weekend shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, New York, U.S. May 17, 2022. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)

WATTERS: THE LEFT IS TRYING 'CAPITALIZE' ON THE BUFFALO, NY SHOOTING TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY

Haake then went on to mention a "frustrating" conversation he had earlier with Senator Mike Braun, R-Ind., in which the lawmaker expressed disagreement with a bill combating these shootings as "domestic terrorism."

Haake slammed Braun and Republicans at large for this, adding, "The attaching of labels or to make it right-wing domestic terrorism because thats what were talking about at least in this specific case all of a sudden changes the conversation that Republicans are willing to have about this, and were right back at square zero."

NBCs Chuck Todd dinged President Biden for failing to make the comparison during his first State of the Union. (Photo by: William B. Plowman/NBC) (William B. Plowman/NBC)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Well, look, this is sort of the chickens coming home to roost," Todd said. "They have been appeasing this wing of the party for years and year and years. And now they are stuck with this group."

Follow this link:
MSNBC's Chuck Todd claims the right appeases White supremacists by crying 'free speech' - Fox News

One of the joys of growing up in the rural South has to be the food. In a land where there are not four seasons, just hot and hotter, theres plenty of seasoning. As James Autrey put it, Seasons came with food not the other way around.Our seasons were identified by the foods that we raised. Planting potatoes, butterbeans, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, watermelons, corn, purple-hull peas rites of passage from spring to summer to fall. And theres the meat. Thats where fried chicken takes over the kitchen. The chicken was so revered in the South that we called it the gospel bird.

Rodney Kennedy

I reminisce about fried chicken for one serious reason. Fried chicken, at least until someone invented nuggets and assorted pieces, came as breast, thigh, leg, and wing. The most valued piece at our table was the breast. Lucky was the person who managed to get two chicken breasts at dinner. The poor wings were the last pieces to leave the platter.

Now that politics has become a junk food mall, the chicken has been reduced to one more fast-food item: Chick-fil-A, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeyes, Raising Canes, and so many others. Joshua Gunn says that one could argue in a peculiar, perverse sense, that our junk food habit is homologous to our piquant political diet these days. The allure of junk food matches the allure of our politics simple, cheap, fast, superficial, but somewhat tasty. Junk food addicts care nothing for nutritional value and good taste. Political junk food addicts care nothing for rational deliberation and good manners.

Add a dollop of ketchup to this cuisine nightmare and you have poor taste in spades. Gunn remarks about ketchup, As culinary histories go, we probably should not be surprised that a seventeenth-century Asian table sauce made of pickled fish would turn up in the United States in an octagonal bottle of sugary red pulp, the butt of which one . Must. Relentlessly. Pound. To release. The. Tangy. Treacle. The ketchup of American politics is emotions. Both the left wing and the right wing churn out emotions from the outrage factory.

Prominent political actors have figured out that the media all of it has about a fourth-grade level in terms of what gets publicity. Politics in America have, therefore, become a giant chicken house. If you have ever been in a chicken house (one of those long, tin-roofed, wire-wall cages that hold up to 5,000 chickens per house) then you know that its 50% noise from cackling chickens and 50% chicken poop. The only good day in a chicken house is the day the trucks show up, all the chickens are put in crates, hauled away, and the house is emptied, clean, and sanitized. This, of course, doesnt feel possible for our Chicken House of Politics.

A famous preacher once prayed: God is not for the right wing or the left wing. God loves the whole bird. Not in our political culture. All that matters are the wings. The rest of the bird is now manipulated and even silenced by the wings. Together these wings represent only a third of the population, but they control political discourse for the time being.

What complicates this over-hyped, wing-saturated culture is the outrage that erupts when a speaker engages in his or her own brand of controversial speech. Liberals use free speech to shame conservatives. On the other hand, conservatives use free speech to attack minorities, immigrants, and women. Conservatives say that liberals use political correctness to police conservative speech. Free speech and hate speech are a volatile mixture.

More and more people accept all kinds of speech and invoke free speech privileges if you attack them for being rude, crude, and obscene. Profanity is now seen as a sign of strength for political candidates. Profanity has become, for some, a civic virtue. There seems to be a sort of rhetorical synergy between profanity and civility. This is remarkable in a culture that not so long ago was entertained by George Carlins comedy riff, Seven Words You Cant Say on TV. Shouldnt at least one or two people at least raise an eyebrow that profanity has been promoted to the profound.

Traditional ceremonial rhetoric seems no longer sufficient to satisfy a rabid publics need for leaders to shout back at all kinds of outrage and terror with defiant, uncivil, reckless, profane outbursts. Outrage, profanity, and crazy, off-the-wall ideas are offered a place at the table of normality.

To some, this may sound like attempting to close the barn door after a couple billion horses have bolted. But somewhere there has to be a conversation, a deliberation, a discernment about the future of democracy. Maybe theres a slight chance of a crack in the door of emotion for a return of Aristotle. After all, to Aristotle, moderation was the ideal approach to behavior. He taught that extremism led to unhappiness in every aspect of life. Extremism was unwise. Now, thats a twenty-five-hundred-year-old idea that needs a fair airing in public.

Free speech has become more about being free than it is about speech. The cry is for more freedom, unlimited freedom. The irony is that theres been a dumbing down of free speech. No one seems to care about the debilitating impact of hate speech on others. When conservatives were required by federal law to swallow existing racism, they were strangely quiet in the decades following the Civil Rights movement. Now, they have returned with a vengeance, blurting out all kinds of racist verbiage. This time they have two allies in tow: denial of racism and free speech. In what sense has it become acceptable for Christians to defend hate speech? Or to deny the realities of history or systemic racism?

Egor Myznik / Unsplash

I cannot believe that a new age of outrage, public profanity, and bad manners will prevail among us. No matter how many people are feeling free I am not convinced that this movement will make us proud of being Americans or rewrite our social attitudes and democratic practices. I admit that I hope this is a fad that will fade into obscurity. There is an undercurrent of evil in our midst like a bad moon rising, and we should not lose our sense of urgency. Perhaps the advice of Plato can shake us from the doldrums: And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse, puts good for evil, being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, persuades them to do evil instead of good, what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be like to gather after the sowing of that fruit? Anything but good.

The warning signs that our obsession with wings undermines democracy are too strong and too in-our-faces to ignore. Eddie Glaude, Jr. in Democracy in Black, observes, Together we must close the value gap and uproot racial habits by doing democracy, once again, in black. If we fail this time and if there is a God I pray that we dont this grand experiment in democracy will be no more.

One powerful voice in our wing-based politics was that of Vaclav Havel, the poet who became president of Czechoslovakia. Havel suggested that the world was losing the idea that the world might actually be changed by the force of truth, the power of a truthful word, the strength of a free spirit, conscience and responsibility no guns, no lust for power, no political wheeling and dealing. To abandon truthfulness for lies, deception and the vague notion of freedom puts the public sphere at risk. Havel said, I am convinced that we will never build a democratic state based on the rule of law if we do not at the same time build a state that is humane, moral, intellectual, spiritual, and cultural. Havels poetic expressions of the power of moral democracy resound as an orchestra filled with trumpets drowning out the cacophonous sounds of a house full of noisy chickens

Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div. from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. The pastor of 7 Southern Baptist churches over the course of 20 years, he pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton, Ohio which is an American Baptist Church for 13 years. He is currently professor of homiletics at Palmer Theological Seminary, and interim pastor of Emmanuel Friedens Federated Church, Schenectady, New York. His sixth book The Immaculate Mistake: How Evangelicals Gave Birth to Donald Trump is now out from Wipf and Stock (Cascades).

Link:
Free Speech in a House Full of Chickens - Word and Way

The horror and hatred surrounding last weekend's massacre in a Buffalo supermarket has shocked the nation, sending yet another chilling reminder about the toxic combination of racism, access to guns and mental health that afflicts some young white men in this country. It also renewed the conversation about hate crimes, the right to free speech and the complicity of white supremacist groups in these tragedies. Daniel Medwed, GBH News legal analyst and Northeastern University law professor, joined host Paris Alston on GBHs Morning Edition to talk about the intersection of these issues. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

Paris Alston: So Daniel, there's been a lot of evidence coming out around this murder, this mass murder, that it was motivated by racial bias, particularly because the murderer had a white supremacist manifesto. He was influenced by white supremacist vitriol online. And there's talk about it being charged as a hate crime as a result of all that. Do you think that'll happen?

Daniel Medwed: Absolutely. All signs are pointing in that direction, Paris. Under New York law, a murder will be elevated to a hate crime and subject to an enhanced penalty if the perpetrator, quote, intentionally selects the victim or commits the act based on race, national origin, gender or some other protected status. And given the manifesto that you mentioned and all of the other facts surrounding this tragedy, it appears as though prosecutors would have a very strong basis for charging this as a hate crime.

Alston: And how does that compare to how it works here in Massachusetts?

Medwed: It's very similar here in Massachusetts. A crime becomes a hate crime when it's committed with the, quote, intent to intimidate the individual because they belong to a protected group and that the person was chosen because of their protected status. So the semantics are a little bit different, but the gist is largely the same here in the Commonwealth.

Alston: How hard is it for prosecutors to prove that? I mean, does there have to be proof that the bias was the entire reason for the crime, or much of the reason, or just part of the reason?

Medwed: Those are critically important questions. And I think the answer depends on the precise jurisdiction and the statutory language in place. Does it have to be the entire reason, as you point out, a substantial motivating factor or just part of the equation? Fortunately, here in Massachusetts, we have a 2015 SJC decision, Commonwealth v. Kelly, that supplies an answer. In that case, the court said that prosecutors do not have to prove that bias was the predominant factor or even a substantial motivating factor in a hate crime. They just have to show that the bias was part of the narrative. It's a rather benign or lenient standard for the government, which at least in theory may seem to make it a little easier to charge something as a hate crime here than in some other places.

Alston: So, Daniel, thinking about that evidence that we mentioned that we have of the shooter's motive, do defendants in these hate crime cases ever raise a First Amendment defense? You know, maybe they say that elevating an offense to a hate crime would be punishing them for viewpoints that they're entitled to have, even if they may be bigoted and offensive.

Medwed: People often make those types of arguments. It comes up a lot. A defendant will say they're being penalized for their First Amendment views and that that's unconstitutional. But those efforts have largely failed so far. And here's why. First, I think it's important to note that the First Amendment doesn't provide blanket protection for all speech. The government may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on even protected speech. And not all speech is subject to robust constitutional safeguards.

Second, and I think more notably, the Supreme Court has already explicitly addressed the nexus between the First Amendment and hate crimes. In a 1993 case called Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the defendant got an enhanced sentence. If I recall, he got seven years instead of two because Wisconsin prosecutors believed that he had intentionally selected the victim based on race. It's a statute that's very similar in Wisconsin to the one in New York that we just mentioned. Mitchell, the defendant, then claimed, hey, this is a First Amendment violation. I'm being punished. I'm being given an extra sentence because of my bigoted views, because of my unpopular viewpoints. And he challenged it all the way through the Wisconsin courts. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with him and said that this was unconstitutional. He was being punished in violation of his First Amendment rights. But get this the U.S. Supreme Court then took the case and in a unanimous decision the court said no, Mitchell was not being punished for his speech. He was being punished for conduct that was animated by racial bias.

Alston: So sort of acting on those bigoted views.

Medwed: Exactly. And so motive is always an appropriate factor in sentencing. It's not the speech that's being punished. But as you point out, Paris, it's acting on those racially charged and horrific views. So that case, the Mitchell case, provides to some extent a really good safeguard for prosecutors when facing a First Amendment challenge in this context.

On a moral level, certainly they [white supremacist groups] bear a lot of responsibility for creating this vile environment in which racial hatred could flourish on a legal level, though, Paris, it's much more challenging.

Alston: I see. So, Daniel, in the couple minutes we have left with you, I want to talk to you about this growing white supremacist conspiracy known as replacement theory that's been being floated around because of what we believe to be the shooter's motive. And so this theory claims that the powers that be are pushing a population shift to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and other nonwhite people. And this has been said to be spread by everyone from fringe groups and individuals to people like Tucker Carlson on Fox News. So given that, is there any onus for what happened and maybe could happen later down the road on people or groups who may be pushing this in the media?

Medwed: Well, on a moral level, certainly they bear a lot of responsibility for creating this vile environment in which racial hatred could flourish. And it's foreseeable that some people are going to act on these horrific views. On a legal level, though, Paris, it's much more challenging. So on the one hand, the legal theory here is often complicity or accomplice liability, that these white supremacist groups aid or abet "abet" is just a fancy legal word for encourage they encourage racial hatred and therefore they have acted as accomplices in these racially charged crimes. So you can argue that they've acted, that they've aided or abetted in these crimes.

On the other hand, you're an accomplice if you both act and you have a culpable mental state, you have to act with the purpose for that particular crime to occur. And that's where it becomes difficult for prosecutors to argue that these groups are accomplices because they can always say, hey, our views are very general, they weren't particular to this defendant, to this act. It wasn't our purpose to foment this particular act of violence.

Alston: Well, Daniel, per usual, you have made something very complicated, a lot easier to understand, and we thank you for that.

See more here:
Hate crimes and free speech: Where do we draw the legal line? - GBH News