Category Archives: Free Speech

Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 7, formally titled the Individual Freedom measure, which bans educators from teaching certain topics related to race and prevents them from making students feel guilt or shame about their race because of historical events. In addition, by April more than 1,500 books primarily dealing with race and LGBTQ issues had been banned in U.S. school districts over the previous nine months. These measures have been described as a rightwing censorship effort unparalleled in its intensity.

Behind these efforts to cancel progressive views lies the mistaken belief that campuses have become laboratories for political indoctrination. As DeSantis stated after signing the repressive legislation: We believe in education, not indoctrination. Yet, the governor and the Republican Party fail to provide significant evidence of such indoctrination.

Many commentators, for example, have noted that Critical Race Theory, a primary right-wing target for cancellation, is actually not taught in public schools and rarely mentioned in colleges. During my 30 years of college teaching, I personally never witnessed professors pushing political indoctrination from the left or the right in the classroom. The Republican Partys highly political attack on public and higher education in America creates confusion and discord and does not solve any actual problems.

It is crucial to clarify the distinction between the campus as a public space as different from the classroom as a space for teaching. Princeton Professor Wendy Brown notes that the classroom is a space where were not talking left wing or right wing but offering the learning that students need to be able to come to their own positions and judgments. In other words, the classroom is centered on academic freedom and the development of critical thinking. The professor through his or her selection of course materials and lesson plans establish the agenda and the direction of the discussion. All views are welcome that contribute to the topic, but the direction and objectives of the course are set by the teacher.

In contrast, the campus is a public space where free speech should be the norm. Neither governors, legislators, administrators or professors have the right to impose their political biases on the campus community. At all the colleges I have taught, speakers from the left and right were consistently encouraged to participate in the civic life of the campus.

The Republican Party attacks on public and college education have blurred this important distinction between academic freedom in the classroom and free speech on campus. Perhaps an example from my experience can demonstrate the importance of academic freedom in the classroom and the dangers of the current repressive political measures adopted by the state of Florida.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

For many years at Eckerd College, I was honored to give the opening lecture on the liberal arts to all of our new first-year students. I consistently began this lecture with a reading of Langston Hughes brilliant poem Let America Be America Again. Through his poetry, Langston Hughes reminds us of the hope and dream of America. He cries out: O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned where equality is in the air we breathe. Let it be the dream it used to be.

While presenting pleasing patriotic images of America, Hughes makes us question these images. Hughes writes: There never has been equality for me, Nor freedom in this homeland of the free. I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slaverys scars. I am the red man driven from the land.

These lines remind us of the atrocities, such as the violence of slavery, that are also America. And yet, Hughes ends on an optimistic truly American note, the idea of hope. He hopes that America can be all the things it was expected to be. He will not give up on the idea of the American Dream. He wants America to be better. I told the students that Langston Hughes represented the best of the liberal scholar seeking the truth, writing clearly, persuasively and movingly on the major ethical issues of his time racism and discrimination. Langston Hughes helps students more deeply appreciate the struggle for true freedom in America.

Unfortunately, a few right-wing alumni and parents posted angry notes on social media denouncing this lecture. In their eyes, Langston Hughes was desecrating America and my lecture was left-wing political indoctrination, which made white students feel bad. They sought to cancel one of the most celebrated African-American writers from the curriculum and destroy academic freedom in the classroom. The new Florida law will further empower these individuals with political agendas to more effectively pursue their dangerous goals.

It is also unfortunate that these critics didnt take the time to actually examine the content of this course. In addition to Langston Hughes, the students were also engaged with the works of conservative thinkers, including theologian C.S. Lewis and philosopher Ayn Rand. We were trying to get students to think critically about all of these important thinkers and decide for themselves what to think. This can only happen in an atmosphere of engagement, active learning and open discussion of all points of view the opposite of political indoctrination. The Republican Partys outrage machine is more interested in canceling leftist views, stoking controversy and scoring political points than in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

William F. Felice, professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College, was the named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He can be reached via his website at williamfelice.com.

See the rest here:
We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Dr. Rita began writing just before George Floyd was killed; its publication date, 5/24/2022, falls on the eve of the second anniversary of his death

The book is designed to rewire our understanding of systemic racism and offer a practical approach to dismantling oppression

LOS ANGELES, May 11, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D. is a white woman with dual Italian/American citizenship who has studied systemic racism for 30 years, across four continents. Dr. Rita channels this wealth of experience and academics into her powerful new book, Digging Up the Seeds of white Supremacy (Collective Power Media), to be released May 24, 2022 the eve of the second anniversary of George Floyd's death.

A coach and healing professional, she interweaves memoir with a robust discourse on race and culture to bridge the gap between the construct of racism and the practice of self-healing. Dr. Rita's narrative is grounded in historical fact; she adds illustrations to visualize her message, personal practice notes, and "How To" guidelines to help readers embody antiracism.

Created via iPad, Dr. Rita's drawingswere conceptualized as graphic recordings to assist readers in digesting complex issues, further support visual learners, and pictorialize 500+ years of history across 10 systems. The tree image "The Whole System: Roots to Branches" functions as an infographic for the book's thematic flow: the System with a capital "S," which brings all the single systems with a lower-case "s" together.

Dr. Rita says that when we act from fear, we're upholding "the System." The progressive, liberal side of our culture continues to accumulate evidence of injustices but we have not found our way to diffuse them. Analysis has led to paralysis. How do we use such evidence not to confirm what we already know, but to transform the racist systems that drive society to change the world for the better, for everyone?

In the "Personal Practice" section of the chapter "Building Collective Power," she writes,

Later, she writes, "We must stop accepting that inequality, inequity, and injustice are normal and inevitable. We must engage in collective intellectual imagination about what it looks like to meet the needs of all."

At a time when misinformation is rampant, distrust of "the other" is epidemic, and rights are threatened daily, this book could not be timelier. Dr. Rita hopes that by following its lead, people can build collective power and co-create new seeds together "an exercise in replacing fear with love."

About the author:Dr. Rita Fierro Ph.D. is an intellectual artist, author, speaker, and radio host. For 30 years, she has studied systemic racism. Combining a coaching approach with evaluative thinking, she leads a consulting firm that assesses projects, social inequities, and provides processes that illuminate complexity for businesses, foundations, non-profits, NGOs, and the United Nations. Dr. Rita has a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, and a masters in Sociology from the University of Rome, Italy. She co-founded Home for Good Coalition so as to transform systemic racism by placing the voices of people who were traumatized by systems at the center of its work. Born in New York City, she lived in her family's ancestral town in Italy from age 10 until her college years. Dr. Rita comes from a long line of traditional healers, and she is both a Reiki and family constellation practitioner.

Dropbox: images, excerpts, illustrations, etc: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r01yt4fa62ki8es/AAACXujVS2Avf9F-aT0Npaaia?dl=0

Dr. Rita interviewed for Life Her podcasthttps://youtu.be/PK0JnCDncTA - Discussing:The Bridge Between Systematic Racism and Healing

Medium articles by Dr. Rita:https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/being-white-in-racial-healing-work-7057d4024ad7https://medium.com/@ritasfierro/white-people-aint-free-7ac633c875a9

Digging up the Seeds of white SupremacyISBN 978-0-5783786-3-3 (Hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-0-5 (Kindle)ISBN 979-8-9858796-2-9 (Audio book)ISBN 979-8-9858796-3-6 (Large-print hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-1-2 (paperback)https://www.amazon.com/Rita-Sinorita-Fierro/e/B09ZXT9FFWhttps://www.drritawrites.com/

Contact: Laura Grover: [emailprotected] or 310-994-1690

SOURCE Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D.

Read the original here:
At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems...

Everyone knows that the Constitution protects free speech under the First Amendment.

But many may not realize that the First Amendment also protects commercial speech, such as advertisements. Even though the level of protection afforded to commercial speech is less than that given to other kinds of speech, especially political speech, businesses still have rights about what they say.

The First Amendment is also implicated when laws require labeling for commercial enterprises. For example, it is entirely legal for government to require fast food businesses to post the calorie count on the products they serve to the public. There are innumerable other examples of required disclosures, such as gas mileage and safety ratings for automobiles and whether a newly constructed home is subject to Mello-Roos taxes.

One infamous example of forced speech in California was imposed via Proposition 65, passed by voters in 1986. Commercial enterprises are required to post warning labels that their products or place of business may contain substances known to cause cancer. But Prop. 65 warnings are so ubiquitous in California that they have become meaningless. They are found on everything from bread to potato chips to chocolate chip cookies. In California, it appears, everything causes cancer.

But a recent court ruling over acrylamide, a naturally occurring substance that is formed in the process of baking goods, may have reined in the absurdity of Prop. 65 warnings just a bit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because scientific evidence couldnt come to a single conclusion over whether acrylamide in food and beverages can cause cancer in humans, the Prop. 65 warning signs for these products were likely misleading.

Turns out that government itself was violating truth in advertising laws.

But perhaps the greater benefit from the ruling has to do with inhibiting nuisance lawsuits that cost businesses millions of dollars. Thats because Prop. 65 has a private right of action provision allowing attorneys to sue businesses on behalf of the state. Prop. 65 essentially deputizes private trial lawyers to search for evidence of noncompliance.

The elimination of the misleading Prop. 65 warning for acrylamide might be a welcome step in reducing false or unproven claims that confuse consumers and cause adverse market effects. This not only would help businesses but also consumers who end up paying more for goods and services when businesses face shakedown lawsuits.

Lawsuit abuse is a huge problem for California and has resulted in the state having the worst rating in the nation from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation as a Judicial Hellhole. Prop. 65 lawsuits are a major reason for that dubious designation since they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per day, not to mention the costs for their own attorneys as well as those of the plaintiff. Given that there are approximately 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, the law presents a great temptation for unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

But Californians are waking up to the absurdity of Prop. 65.

A few years ago there was a push to put a Prop. 65 warning on coffee, again because of the presence of acrylamide. But the blowback from the public, as well as ridicule from late-night TV hosts, may have been a factor in a legal victory for sanity.

Were all for transparency. But Prop. 65 has long outlived its usefulness in providing consumers with reliable information. In fact, it has done just the opposite.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read the rest here:
Free speech and trivial lawsuits - The Whittier Daily News

Thirteen states, including Texas, Tennessee and Missouri, have laws that would immediately ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Major companies like Amazon, CitiGroup and Disney have announced in recent days that they will pay travel costs for employees to cross state lines to access abortion services or gender-affirming care for their children. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida wants to make that more expensive.

Guest: James Poindexter, Jacksonville attorney.

Chapter Endnotes Book Club

Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale "The Little Mermaid" may not be what it seems, according to Stacy Goldring. Shell be discussing it May 17 at San Marco Books and More.

Guest: Stacy Goldring, Chapter Endnotes Book Club Leader.

The Lumineers

Folk-rock stars The Lumineers are kicking off their Brightside World Tour here in Jacksonville next week. The demand for tickets was so great, theyve added a second show.

Guest: Wesley Schultz, guitarist and lead vocalist.

Continue reading here:
Abortion rights and free speech; Chapter Endnotes; The Lumineers - WJCT NEWS

Welcoming the Supreme Courts historic decision to put the controversial sedition law on hold, Congress General Secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala said that the apex courts latest verdict sends a clear message free Speech will not be throttled by autocrats & dictators masquerading as rulers.

Suppressors and subjugators sitting in citadels of power be forewarned, the Congress leader tweeted soon after the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict. Speaking truth to power cant be sedition and status quo will change.

The apex court Wednesday observed that it will not be appropriate to continue using the sedition law until the re-examination of Section 124A dealing with the offence of sedition is complete. Urging the Centre and states to refrain from registering any FIR invoking sedition charges till re-examination is completed, the top court said: All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed for sedition should be kept in abeyance.

The Centre on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that staying the provision may not be the right approach. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, a cognizable offence cannot be prevented from being registered, staying the effect may not be a correct approach and therefore, there has to be a responsible officer for scrutiny, and his satisfaction is subject to judicial review.

Read more from the original source:
'Free speech will not be throttled by autocrats': Congress on sedition law order - The Indian Express

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Link:
Free speech and gun rights collide in Wyoming - Wyoming Tribune

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Musk called the ban 'morally wrong and flat-out stupid,' and said it did not silence Trump, but amplified him among his base

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said Tuesday he would reverse Twitters ban on former U.S. President Donald Trump, while speaking at the Financial Times Future of the Car conference.

Musk, who has called himself a free speech absolutist, recently inked a US$44-billion deal to acquire the social media platform.

The decision to ban Trump from Twitter did not silence the former presidents voice, but rather amplified his views among people on the political right, Musk said, calling the ban morally wrong and flat-out stupid.

Musk added that he had spoken to Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who agreed the platform should not have permabans on users that violate its content policies, the Financial Times reported.

Trump was permanently suspended from Twitter shortly after the Jan. 6 riot on the U.S. Capitol. Twitter cited the risk of further incitement of violence in its decision.

Trump has previously said he would not return to Twitter if uncancelled. He has also launched his own social media platform, Truth Social. However, some suggest that he might not be able to resist returning to Twitter.

(Reporting by Sheila Dang Editing by Nick Zieminski)

See the article here:
'Free speech absolutist': Musk says he would reverse Twitter ban on Donald Trump - National Post

In summary

Assembly Bill 2408 proposes to punish popular social media platforms for editorial content promotion decisions. But it violates fundamental rights and must not become law.

Adam Sieff is a First Amendment and constitutional litigator, a lecturer in law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and vice president of the American Constitution Society in Los Angeles.

If California passed a law exposing major newspaper publishers to liability for the selection, arrangement and promotion of articles they print, it would obviously violate the First Amendment. So why are some state lawmakers advancing Assembly Bill 2408, which proposes precisely the same type of unconstitutional penalties for major internet publishers?

The bill is well-intended, and aims to promote the mental and emotional well-being of young people on the internet. But to achieve these worthy ends, AB 2408 proposes to punish popular social media platforms when their editorial content promotion decisions can be shown to cause young audiences to suffer injuries.

That proposal violates core speech rights, and legislators must not allow it to become law in its current form.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment protects publishers decisions to select, arrange and promote content to audiences as a basic exercise of their editorial control and judgment. The protection applies regardless of the medium of communication publishers use to convey information, whether they run a newspaper, cable network, website or social network. And the court has expressly held that the amendment applies to online speech and content moderation practices.

Critically, the rule prevents California, or any state, from enacting a law that would penalize an internet publisher for exercising its judgment about what kinds of content to publish and promote to its audience, just as it prevents California from enacting a law punishing a newspaper for its decisions about what to print on the front page.

It makes no legal difference that social media platforms often create algorithms to apply their editorial judgments. An algorithm is just a set of pre-programmed editorial rules that reflects value judgments made by real people about the kind of content to display and promote.

To punish a platforms algorithmic promotion of popular content is, as a constitutional matter, no different than punishing CalMatters for recommending stories to particular users based on their browsing and reading history. Nor, ultimately, is it any different from punishing a tabloid magazine for publishing prurient content on its front page.

The fact that AB 2408 endeavors to protect young audiences is also, from a legal perspective, irrelevant. The First Amendment prohibits the imposition of legal penalties that restrict the ideas to which certain audiences may be exposed, and the general exercise of editorial discretion cannot be suppressed solely to protect young people from content or ideas that a government censor considers unsuitable.

While one cannot deny that these are difficult times to be a young person, and few policies are more important than those that advance the health and prospects of future generations, AB 2408 is the wrong remedy. Permitting California to punish social media platforms editorial decisions, as the measure proposes, would equally permit governments to punish newspapers and magazines, as well as authors of choose-your-own-adventure stories, video games and, arguably, any kind of literature if a plaintiff could establish injuries suffered from those authors editorial choices a prospect the Supreme Court rejected in 2011, the last time California attempted to restrict the publication of content to young audiences (in that instance, video games).

There are better ways to achieve AB 2408s goals that are consistent with the First Amendment values that define our open society. Earlier concerns over new forms of unsettling but constitutionally protected media, including comic books, movies, rock music, cable programming and video games, offer instruction.

After courts rejected attempts like AB 2408 to punish the publishers of these different types of content, governments, publishers, schools and civil society groups came together to develop rating systems, parental controls and public information campaigns to allow families to make informed choices about their media consumption.

The constitutionally required solution to concerns over new forms of speech, in other words, is more speech, not less. Californias lawmakers should embrace that approach and reject AB 2408, at least as written today.

Read this article:
Crimping free speech is the wrong way to rein in social media - CalMatters

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a healthy, functioning democracy. A nation demonstrates the value it places on human dignity when each person can speak freely and express themselves through speech, art, literature and other means of expression.

We recently interviewed experts about this essential freedom, exploring topics like the rise of the internet as a vehicle for expression, the state of free speech on college campuses, and the challenges facing freedom of the press globally. The calls to action that we gleaned from those experts include these recommendations to bolster freedom of expression:

BIG TECH

Ukrainians keep using the digital world to rally one another and inform the world about Russias invasion. Meanwhile, Russia uses its own internet tools to spread disinformation about its moves in Ukraine.

These dualities highlight why U.S. and Western policymakers and technology leaders must strike the right balance in modernizing the internet. They must protect freedom of expression and the free flow of information while curtailing the spread of disinformation and the worst aspects of social media use.

This is no easy balance to strike, but it is best left to the private sector to strike it. A good example is Facebooks Oversight Board. The independent panel consists of leaders and experts who dont need to kowtow to any potential threat to their decision making. That is a good place to start, although Facebook or any other tech company cannot use such a board as window dressing.

The private sector also can attack this challenge through innovation. Freedom Houses Adrian Shahbaz emphasized to us how WhatsApp made end-to-end encryption the standard for its more than 1 billion users. That is a greater protection of privacy than a government regulation.

Still, elected leaders and regulators have a role to play. Congress, for example, should continue working on revamping Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Written in the late 1990s, that section rightly protected the emerging internet from the liability laws governing traditional news organizations.

Legislators should reconsider that exemption since social media platforms have become a go-to source for information, including disinformation.

Similarly, the United States and its democratic allies must thwart China and autocratic nations from rewriting the rules of the internet. Their attempts to do so in global forums could result in a body blow to freedom of expression.

FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Free speech in a diverse society needs citizens to engage with others, even if those engagements are uncomfortable. Without such exposure, were tempted to shut out everything with which we disagree.

Breaking down our bubbles is especially important for college students who hail from homogenous backgrounds. They often lack the skills to engage with classmates with different experiences and views.

Students themselves have the responsibility to act. Yet university administrators should create opportunities for engagements to occur as early as college orientation sessions. Administrators also must not shy away from inevitable controversies. As Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill, director of the Bipartisan Policy Centers Campus Free Expression Project told us, Having controversial expression is not a sign of

failure.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Russias suppression of a free press during the Ukraine war underscores Vladimir Putins disregard for a free press. No independent media organization remains in Russia. That includes Novaya Gazeta, for which editor Dmitry Muratov won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his commitment to independent reporting.

In our own hemisphere, an alarming challenge to freedom of the press exists. Eight Mexican journalists already have been murdered this year.

Guatemalan journalist Sofia Menchu explained in an interview how authorities in her country attempt to suppress an independent media. For instance, Guatemalan leaders use lawsuits against journalists to get them to censor themselves before publishing a story or commentary.

Journalists like Menchu need leaders from President Joe Biden to members of Congress to State Department officials to decry attempts to crack down on a free press in Guatemala, Central America and elsewhere. As she said, international governments and organizations can help journalists enjoy freedom of speech.

U.S. lawmakers also should adequately fund organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Agency for International Development. Part of their democracy-building work is growing a free press abroad. Likewise, legislators should effectively support taxpayer-funded organizations such as

Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. They provide valuable, factual information to people in nations that lack uncensored news.

These recommendations have a simple goal: enhancing a flow of reliable information and ensuring a robust marketplace of ideas. After all, that is essential to creating and maintaining a vibrant democracy.

See the original post:
How to Protect and Enhance Freedom of Expression InsideSources - InsideSources

As one of the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets demanding Bread, Freedom, and Social Justice during the Arab Spring, I experienced firsthand the very best and the worst that Twitter has to offer.

When the government took control of the media, shut down the internet, and cracked down on dissent, we the people found refuge on Twitter to plan protests, notify protesters of changing routes and safe locations, and keep a record of people who were arrested or killed. But just as the government unleashed security forces to physically attack us in Tahrir Square, so too they came after us online, launching a coordinated wave of abuse and disinformation to intimidate and silence journalists and activists.

What we naively considered a safe space on Twitter turned into a nightmare of coordinated harassment and disinformation. The constant threat and the level of anxiety and fear dictatorial regimes inflict on anyone who opposes them lead many people to self-censor or leave the journalism profession.

Like so many journalists and human rights defenders, I am deeply concerned about Elon Musks potential takeover of Twitter. When Musk describes social media as a digital town square for public debate and asserts that Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, who could disagree? I have risked my life to freely express my demand for human rights and advocate for democracy. Today, as an exile in the United States, I work for the free speech advocacy organisation PEN America to keep writers and journalists safe online and off.

Musks understanding of free speech implies that the playing field is level and that we are all treated equally and safely online, which is why I can say with absolute certainty that getting rid of all guardrails on Twitter including meaningful content moderation policies and processes wilfully ignores the ways in which rampant online abuse chills free expression.

People are targeted not only for what they say online but often simply for being outspoken members of a particular group for their race, their faith, their gender identity, their sexual orientation, and their disability. If women and minorities, reporters and human rights defenders are pushed off digital platforms because of severe and constant abuse, then public debates are left to the most privileged few with the loudest voices. If Twitter is where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated, the question is who matters in these debates.

If Elon Musk is serious about making Twitter a safe haven for free speech for all, he needs to remember that social media is a critical tool used by journalists, dissidents, and activists around the world to speak truth to power. And those in power cynically deploy coordinated harassment and disinformation campaigns to undermine the free press and de-platform dissent.

Over the course of its history, Twitter has prioritised American and English-speaking users over the safety of Black and brown people and others from marginalised communities globally. The platform has been exceedingly slow to put meaningful policies and features in place to better protect its most vulnerable users. After a decade of tireless advocacy from civil society and activists, Twitter has finally started to make progress in recent years to address abuse and disinformation. But there is still much work to be done, including: giving people the option to filter the abusive content they receive so they can review and address it later, with the help of trusted allied individuals; making it easier to document online abuse; making it easier for people to separate their personal and professional identities online and allow them to control their privacy settings accordingly.

When voices are silenced and speech is chilled, public discourse suffers. Freedom of expression and user agency do not exist without safety and protection online. By reducing the harmful effect of online harassment, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram can ensure that social media becomes more open and equitable for all users.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Read more:
We need Twitter guardrails that protect lives and free speech - Al Jazeera English